To me, in my opinion, groups like the SDA and LDS are "cults"in the (Christian) theological sense, but not necessarily in the social-psychological sense. The front door seems to be as wide open as the back door, if you take my meaning, with these groups. But your milage may of course vary.

But then there are other groups that I would consider to be cultic in both senses, from the point of view of Christian apologetics and as well as based upon social-psychological principles. The Watchtower organizatrion and the Unification Church are groups to be included in this latter category in my opinion. The front door is wide open in these groups, but in the long run it's like Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave...

Seventh Day Adventists seem to have gone fairly mainstream.

But the Mormons have not, at least not in any theological sense, i.e. they remain outside basic Christian beliefs.

Both groups began as personality-driven "cults", but evolved into religions.

Power devolved from one leader to a government, albeit the Mormons seem less democratic than the Adventists.

I do receive complaints about the Mormon Church from families and others concerned and/or affected.

But not really any complaints about the Adventists, which seem to be a fairly benign group.

But I'd respectfully argue that SDA teachings remain outside basic Christian belief as well. Theological doctrines like Investigative Judgement, soul sleep, and Sabbatarian legalism are not part of mainstream Christian doctrine, either. Am I wrong?

[www.adventist.org]

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.

The mere fact that SDA hold the collective works of an 1800s woman claiming to be a "divinely inspired prophetess" at or nearly at the level of the Bible makes them far outside mainstream Christian teachings.

That this prophetess was discovered not only to have faked divine inspiration, but to have stolen her "divinely inspired" writings from other authors, and yet the church not only upholds these writings as divine but is in fact increasing pressure on regions, churches and individuals to accept her writings as divine, should be cause for concern.

The White Estate has known of the plagiarizing for decades, but kept as much evidence as possible locked away without informing the Adventist body.

"Cult" is a loaded word; I think a lot of the emotional definition rests in whether or not an organization engages in physical and/or sexual violence. Adventists generally engage in neither. Doctrinally speaking, however, SDAs hold a number of beliefs that place them well outside mainstream Christianity.

"In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry."

This was called The Great Disappointment.

The Millerites were told that on Oct 22, 1844, Jesus would return to earth. Thousands sold all their earthly possessions including their homes; some donned "white raiment." Families gathered outside and in the fields to wait for sign of the Lord.

When this did not happen, grief overtook the people. Some "lay prostrate" for two days, weeping in disbelief. Tensions with non-Millerite townspeople, already high, escalated further; Millerite churches were burned.

A subset of Millerites who would later establish the Adventist church solved the problem neatly: it was not the earth that was to have been "cleansed" on October 22, 1844, but one of the "heavenly sanctuaries."

They declared that on Oct 23, 1844, Jesus (as quoted above) entered the "second sanctuary." In fact, Jesus' atonement for humankind was not yet finished until Oct 23, 1844. This makes it a little easier to accept that only 144,000 people total will make it to heaven, but...(yes, only 144,000 Adventists, out of all humanity, will be saved in the end. Competition is tight.)

Critics of investigative judgement emerged over the course of the past hundred years--and were systematically purged.

Sile:

"'Cult' is a loaded word"?

You seem to be an apologist in this statement attempting to dismiss the label you began this thread with regarding the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

The single most salient single feature of destructive cults is that they are personality-driven by a charismatic authoritarian who has no meaningful accountability.

This may have been true for the Adventists historically, but it is not true today.

Ellen White and Miller are dead.

And Adventists now have a democratic church government.

You appear to have an "emotional definition" of the word based upon your feelings and family experience.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

This is a simple definition based upon the structure and behavior of the group, not its beliefs. And it is neither "loaded" nor "emotional".

The Seventh Day Adventist Church does not fit this definition, as repeatedly pointed out on this thread.

You seem to have hit a dead end in your analysis. Perhaps you should move on.

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.


Ellen G. White's writings are now being pushed anew - employees are being asked to sign "loyalty" contracts which reaffirm their commitment to church beliefs, including very non-mainstream-Christian beliefs such as accepting an 1800s prophetess as having been divinely inspired.

Coercive persuasion pervades every aspect of Adventist live.

Economic exploitation of the group members--many of them extremely poor, especially overseas--is led by the ruling coterie.


The non-mainstream views of Adventism, which had begun to relax in the past decade or so, are being coercively ramped up by the current president, Ted Wison. You will find vigorous discussion of this fact on Adventist forums.

My concern is that Adventism is in danger not only of failing to hit mainstream, but regressing to non-mainstream depths it hasn't seen for some time.

Sile:

You have run out of gas and now you appear to be just arguing for the sake of argument.

Again, Ellen White is dead so that argument is moot. Very hollow argument to say the least.

I have received no complaints (about 30 years and counting) about either "coercive persuasion" or cult-like exploitation regarding the Adventists.

At this point you seem to be grasping at straws.

You don't like the Adventists and feel they hurt you.

You disagree with their beliefs.

Got it.

But that doesn't make them a "cult".

Let's move on now. This thread is going nowhere.

Quote
rrmoderator
Seventh Day Adventists seem to have gone fairly mainstream.

But the Mormons have not, at least not in any theological sense, i.e. they remain outside basic Christian beliefs.

I'd very much disagree about Mormonism not being "mainstream."

In a day and age in which we have a major Presidential contender who is a lifelong member of the LDS, I'd say that Mormonism has well and truly become a mainstream religion, sociologically speaking.

And doctrines like eternal progression and baptism for the dead are no more mainstream or orthodox Christian doctrines than are investigative judgement or Sabbitarian legalism.

In the Christian sense one could fairly say that these are all dangerous heresies, but they are not sufficient conditions to label the organizations that they originated with as "cults."

zeuszor:

This is beginning to get off topic.

The point is that Adventists are more mainstream theologically, relevant to Christianity, than Mormons.

Mormon beliefs are not "mainstream" according to any Christian denomination. But Adventists seem to more widely accepted by Christians.

As far as popular culture, Mormons have made their way increasingly into the mainstream culture, but they continue to support a type of subculture. This is particularly evident in Utah.