Mormons

[Ducimus]

Heh, my girlfriend is.. or rather was mormon. She's what they refer to as "non practicing". She doesn't quite go with the church anymore, but since her family is mornon, and she was raised mormon, she'll defend it. We've gotten into some pretty interesting discussions, but i choose to respect her position, and am thankful she's not in the mormon church anymore.

I did go with her to provo Utah some months back to see her sister get married... at a mormon temple..... and umm WOW, that was ahh.. interesting. Coming from a family that has 15 freaking kids and all, nevermind the inlaws.

Of course i couldn't go inside the temple (they have temples, and churchs, and they call them wards or some such), but from what im told on what it looks like inside there, lots of mirrors, they dress in white.. reminds me of something out of science fiction They're quick to try and convert you too if you let them. Which in my book is a big no no. Hearing some of their beliefs described to me, i couldn't beleive what i was hearing, its really out there, acutally WAAAAAY out there if you compare it to what mainsream chrisitiantly drones on about.

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it. And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink" , and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store. I really got a kick out of going a cafe, and saying out loud, "I'd like a cup of coffee!", and more of then then not, i got at least one person giving me a dirty look. COffee.. hot drink.. bad!

Originally Posted by Ducimus

...

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it. And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink" , and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store. I really got a kick out of going a cafe, and saying out loud, "I'd like a cup of coffee!", and more of then then not, i got at least one person giving me a dirty look. COffee.. hot drink.. bad!

Interesting "insider" stuff. Yea, I could see how just the coffee-issue would put these people in loggerheads with Finns for good. We Finns really dig our cuppa, I think we drink most of the stuff in the world per capita.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2007/03/f...ng_230777.html

Well, at least we try to drink it.

[Feuer Frei!]

Hmm, no coffee eh?
Counts me out then, i like it black and strong, no sugar

[kiwi_2005]

Their must be two kinds of Mormons cause the kind i hear about in the news are not the Mormon missionaries i knew, they were easy to get on with never tried to push their religion down your throat and were sports crazy. They loved their American football. This was years ago back then my aunty was a Mormon so i always bumped into a Mormon missionary. Cause the Missionaries were always around my age they would come round to my place to relax, they knew i had no intention of becoming a Mormon so knew not to speak about it. From time to time i would ask about it and got given The book of Mormon, which ive read. Personally i thought it was a great fable. I was pretty much dumbfounded when i first heard about those Mormons that live the way they do, 10 wifes, marrying very young girls etc. Nowhere near to the ones i got to know over the years.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Their must be two kinds of Mormons cause the kind i hear about in the news are not the Mormon missionaries i knew, they were easy to get on with never tried to push their religion down your throat and were sports crazy. They loved their American football. This was years ago back then my aunty was a Mormon so i always bumped into a Mormon missionary. Cause the Missionaries were always around my age they would come round to my place to relax, they knew i had no intention of becoming a Mormon so knew not to speak about it. From time to time i would ask about it and got given The book of Mormon, which ive read. Personally i thought it was a great fable. I was pretty much dumbfounded when i first heard about those Mormons that live the way they do, 10 wifes, marrying very young girls etc. Nowhere near to the ones i got to know over the years.

AFAIK the mainstream Mormon church no longer officially condones or allows the practice of polygamy. The groups that do still practice it are fundamentalist sects that are not recognized by the "official" Church of Latter Day Saints.

Of course those sects would probably tell you that it's the "official" church that has departed from the true path, but that's the way of things.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I thought the story was that god made man in his own image? GEN 1:27

Then should we not all look alike?

We do. Two eyes above, nose in the middle, mouth under. At least that's what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Mormonism is BIG in utah. Well, the state was practically founded on it.

Practically? After Joseph Smith was martyred, Brigham Young started looking for a place they could go and not be bothered. After talking to John C. Fremont, who had explored the Great Salt Lake in 1840, Young broght the first Mormons here in 1847. No 'practically' about it - Brigham Young founded Utah and only tolerted non-Mormons when he realized there was not much he could do about it.

And there's alot of weird laws and prohibitions (social or legal) because of it. THey're not allowed to drink coffee for instance, its considered a "hot drink",[/quote]
I don't know where the "hot drink" thing comes from. The injunction is against caffeine. Tea is also verboten, hot or cold, as are most soft drinks.

and you can't go into a supermarket and buy beer either. Have to go to some special state run store.

Sure you can buy beer in grocery stores, convenience stores, in fact just about anywhere. But the alcohol content is 3.2%. You have to go the the State-owned liquor stores to by full strength beer or any hard liquor, including wine.

It used to be (right up until last year) that to sell anything stronger than 3.2 beer you had to get a state liquor license, and only private clubs could do that. This meant that:

1. Bars could only sell 3.2 beer, nothing else.

2. Restaurants that wanted to serve wine with dinner had to get a private club license and then a special liquor license. The liquor cabinet was in the back and had a sign on it: State Liquor Store #238. They could bring the bottle (or usually minibottles) to your table, but they couldn't serve it. They would bring the 'setups' - glasses etc - but you had to pour it yourself.

3. Since hard alcohol was only served at private clubs, every ad for a band was accompanied with "A private club for members". But they were very non-exclusive. When I wanted to see a certain band and called to ask about membership, I was told the only requirement was a yearly $25 fee. At the ski resorts they were very careful to ask if visitors were members, and if they weren't to quickly explain that: A. They could get a week-long membership for $5, and they could bring in five guests, or B. "Joe over there is a member. If anybody asks, tell them your his guest."

People used to blame the private clubs for keeping this wacky system going, but the fact is that it was only ten years or so ago that we first got a member on the state liquor commission who actually drank. That, and the minute the law was changed and anybody could get a liquor license, the former private clubs suddenly became regular bars.

But it gets weirder.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

AFAIK the mainstream Mormon church no longer officially condones or allows the practice of polygamy. The groups that do still practice it are fundamentalist sects that are not recognized by the "official" Church of Latter Day Saints.

Of course those sects would probably tell you that it's the "official" church that has departed from the true path, but that's the way of things.

All true. Brigham Young tried again and again to make Utah a state, and was told that wouldn't happen until polygamy was gone. He refused to do that, and it wasn't until he died in 1877 that negotiations really got going.

The Church President and Prophet had a "revelation" telling him that The Faithful should now "obey the laws of the land", and they outlawed the practice. Utah became the 45th state in 1896.

About one percent of the population, or 25,000 people are estimated to still practice polygamy. They outnumber and outgun local law enforcement agencies, so they are left alone until they do something outrageous, like blowing up each other's churches or marrying their fourteen-year-old daughters to their uncles.

Back in the day Mark Twain did a show in Salt Lake City. Since he was famous for his anti-religion stance of course he had some choice words for the Mormons as well. Legend has it that after the show he was approached by a Mormon bishop who asked what he had against polygamy. Twain replied "No one who has read the Bible could ever believe in polygamy. Why, haven't you read where it says 'No man can serve two masters?"

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

What i'm writing here is not intended to be a religious lesson, nor is it the intent to criticise other people's beliefs, however i do take the firm stance that it is so ignorant and plain stupid when the ignoramouses of this world make the assumption that it is the religion that is at fault, not the people that actually perpetrated the offenses or causes of alarm.
That is a big gripe of mine.
The word of the Lord does not condone the actions of the unsavoury behaviour of its perpetrators, i'm not sure where people get that idea from.

I don't agree and could really rip into that claim if I wanted to, but I'll be nice and only give it a glancing blow.

Frankly I think this sort of behavior goes part in parcel with the basics of most religions. Your typical religion sets up the statement that they are the only true religion and that all others are false (or often much worse). Even if they do not explicitly say that, the premise is generally still there (if our religion is different then others, then there must one that is right, therefore the others are wrong and these people are ignorant and must see the light). This is basic human nature to, hate and fear that which is different and unalike.

Second, this lack of questioning found in many faiths is what makes members so vulnerable to people who exploit and use them. It is part of what makes suicide bombers, and other religious terrorists possible. They must believe without question. It is also what permits all the other stuff that happens in religion, which most would find highly questionable otherwise.

These 2 things combined together (I am right + lack of questioning) are what create 'holy' wars, forced conversions, the inquisition, the holocaust (Nazism was effectively a religion as practiced by the SS, and the effect of the Christian hatred of Jews), persecution of other groups, justification for racism and slavery, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

So ya I would say the institution is inherently responsible. Now if you want to get to something that really pisses me off... people who put words into "God's" mouth. Who the hell do they think they are, that they think they can claim to know what "God" wants. If there is such an entity, it would have to be completely beyond our comprehension, and understanding, thus rendering us incapable of knowing what it desires (or if it even desires, as that is a mortal trait).


Now as a more general comment, anyone ever noticed, how very quickly people of faith get angry if you even begin to question their beliefs. They can go from happy and pleasant, to angry and rude in the blink of an eye. I find that very odd and attribute it to doubt and anxiety. If a person is secure in their beliefs then logically they should be able to take any amount of questioning or worse. You see a lot of insecurity in the full video OTH started the thread with.

Frankly I think the reason people get so hostile is because they are afraid of being shown their beliefs are not real, or worse of looking stupid for believing something that would otherwise be considered absurd if it wasn't cloaked in religion. Most people are very insecure in their faiths, which makes them quick to take action to reinforce that faith.


Anyhow, ultimately I don't care what other people believe, as long as it does not directly affect me or how I choose to lead my life. But I do not like organized religion, due to it being a power entity and due to what it does in the world, which is mostly harm in my eyes. All of that in exchange for a bit of comfort in a world that is totally mad, and a bit of hope towards that which is forever void of knowledge, death.

[Sailor Steve]

NS, you are in good company. Men with names like Adams, Jefferson and Madison used almost the exact same terms you use.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

okay, I found some funny ones: JW art

Jim Jones used cyanide. We use lions.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Jim Jones used cyanide. We use lions.

What they don't show you is the lion thinking, "Thank you, Lord, for the bountiful meal which you have brought before me..."

[Ducimus]

Honestly, when it comes to this subject, i have had so much passed my way as far as info and weirdness, i don't even know where to begin. The only thing that sticks out in my mind, is my GF is 33 years old ,and never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre. I guess they don't like that being known. Of course she went into this whole religious persocution thing as an excuse for what happened. Anyway... its all weird to me.

edit:

Oh yes, they are organized on an uber level. Its damn near its own system of goverment. I have never encountered a religous denomination as organized to the extent of mormonism.

[CaptainHaplo]

Catholicism has em beat on organization - only because for a couple of centuries - the Papacy WAS a government - and the Vatican is still considered a "sovereign" entity.

As for polygamy, its kind of funny to watch modern judeao-xtians struggle with this issue. Morally its deemed reprehensible - yet was an accepted practice in the Old Testament - and was never specifically prohibited in the New Testament either. I have had some seriously engaging discussions with other biblical scholars on this issue - and not one has been successful in demonstrating any directive in either testament that sets such a boundary - except in ONE singular case. Specifically - if one wishes to be a Bishop - your limited to one wife. Actually - the specification that a Bishop could only have one wife - as one theologian had to admit - is credible evidence that polygamy was allowed for the "average joe".

Society adapts its morals to the wishes of the people in that society. Nothing wrong with monogamy at all - but there is no biblical instruction demanding it.

[Feuer Frei!]

Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith). Islam and Buddhism are entirely separate religions.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries.

The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of the Lord’s Supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and so on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original “mainline” denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: as believers, we must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is great deal of latitude in how Christians should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different “flavors” of Christianity. A Presbyterian church in Uganda will have a style of worship much different from a Presbyterian church in Colorado, but their doctrinal stand will be, for the most part, the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?” This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn’t happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home? The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.
The important thing is to be dogmatic where Scripture is and to avoid being dogmatic where Scripture is not. Churches should strive to follow the model of the early church in Jerusalem: “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). There was unity in the early church because they were steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine. There will be unity in the church again when we get back to the apostles’ doctrine and forego the other doctrines, fads, and gimmicks that have crept into the church.
The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions.

[frau kaleun]

Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith).

That is only one meaning of the word cult, and is typically only used within the Evangelical Christian movement. It's certainly not what most people think of when the word "cult" is thrown around, which is something entirely more sinister than a mere disagreement over what is and is not "heresy" among those who profess to be Christians.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm:

One of the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least eight new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative:

• Positive Meaning:
  • Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as:
    • "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"
    • "a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
    • devotion or homage to a particular person or thing."
    This is the historical meaning of the word, but is rarely today heard outside of religious circles. A reference to the "Cult of Mary" appeared in a newspaper report on the Pope's 1999 visit to the Americas. It simply means that the Pope devotes special attention to the Virgin Mary.
  • Cultural usage: The word is often associated with cult films, cult bands, or cult TV programs. Here, the term "cult" refers to a small but devoted following of a movie, entertainment group or television program. Avid supporters of Star Trek may be referred to as devoted cultists.
• Neutral Meanings:
  • Sociological usage: A small religious group that exists in a state of tension with the predominant religion. Hinduism might be considered a cult in North America; Christianity might be considered a cult in India.
  • Additional sociological usage: An innovative, fervent religious group, as contrasted with more established and conventional sects and denominations.
  • The Observer: An English newspaper seemed to use the term to refer to any small religious group, no matter what its age or teachings.
  • General religious usage: A small, recently created, religious organization which is often headed by a single charismatic leader and is viewed as an spiritually innovative group. A cult in this sense may simply be a new religious movement on its way to becoming a denomination. The Christian religion, as it existed in 30 CE might be considered a cult involving one leader and 12 or 70 devoted disciples as followers. The Mormon denomination was started in the 19th century by Joseph Smith and a few followers; it met this definition of "cult" but has since grown to become an established denomination of about 15 million members.
• Negative Meanings:
  • Evangelical Christians and Counter-Cult Movement (CCM) usage: They define a cult as any religious group which accepts most but not all of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). The implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), Unification Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others would be cults. But the CCM would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian church. They view all other denominations as being in error. Thus, one group's true church is another group's cult. One group's heresy is the other group's orthodoxy.
  • Fundamentalist Christian usage: Some Fundamentalists would accept the Evangelical definition of cult defined above. Others brand any religious group which deviates from historical Protestant Christian beliefs as a cult. This definition would include the LDS Church, Wicca, mainline and liberal Christian denominations, Islam, Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world. The vast majority of humanity would belong to cults, by this definition.
  • Anti-cult movement usage: The anti-cult movement (ACM) attempts to raise public consciousness about what they see as dangerous and authoritarian mind control cults and doomsday cults. Most do not care about the faith group's theology. They target only what they see as deceptive practices, and dangerous psychological pressure techniques, such as brainwashing. The ACM appears to hold opinions about the effectiveness of brainwashing that are not shared by the mental-health community generally. They see mind control/doomsday cults as a widespread social problem.
• Very negative meaning:
  • Popular, media usage: A cult is considered a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, that engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war. The earliest use of this meaning of the word is believed to have been in a 1965 book by Walter Martin "The Kingdom of the Cults"

We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.

Recommended use of the term "cult":

• In 1998-MAY, the Associated Press decided to avoid the use of the word "cult" because it had acquired a pejorative aura; they have since given preference to the term "sect."
• In 1990-FEB, an editorial by Terry Muck in Christianity Today -- the largest Evangelical magazine in the U.S. -- recommended that Christians should avoid using the word. He cited three reasons:
  • "The spirit of fair play suggests it is best to refer to groups of people as they refer to themselves."
  • "There is also a theological reason for avoiding [the label, for it wrongly implies that certain sinners] are the worst kind."
  • "It simply does not work well to use disparaging terms to describe the people whom we hope will come to faith in Christ.... In fact, we are commanded to love them as ourselves."
• We recommend that the word "cult" never be used in reports, articles, essays, sermons, etc. without careful definition in advance -- and perhaps not even then. The negative associations linked to the word are so intense that its use will automatically lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
  
  
  We recommend:
  • Using a term such as "new religious movement," "alternative religious movement," "emergent religion," or "faith group." These terms are more precise and have not (yet) been burdened by so many negative connotations, as has "cult."
  • Using a term such as "heretical" or "spiritual counterfeit" to describe a faith group with whom you disagree on theological grounds. But be aware that the words "heretical" and "heresy" are relative terms. If group "A" considers group "B" to be heretical, then group "B" will probably consider group "A" to also be heretical. They will both be right, relative to their own belief system.
  • An even better usage is to simply refer to the group by its formal name.

Of course, if you are an author, public speaker or teleminister who wants to direct public fear and hatred against a new religious group, then "cult" is an ideal word to use.

Sorry for the long quotation, however I am one of those people who finds it disturbing when the word "cult" is used to define someone else's religious tradition simply because it doesn't conform to one narrow little set of beliefs and practices.

I have a dear friend and (in some ways) mentor who is a devout practicing Mormon. I also have close friends and acquaintances who follow other spiritual paths, many of whom identify as "Christian" and some who do not. In my opinion and experience none of them is any more involved in a "cult" in any commonly held sense of the word than were the people I grew up with in an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian church.