Billy Graham group removes Mormonism from list of cults

benbradley · Oct 18, 2012

This looks popcorn-worthy. I don't know if Billy Graham (and his son) have as large a following or as much influence as he did in the 1970s (1960s?) through 1990s when there would be widely-advertised presentations/sermons/services in front of a huge stadium filled with people and broadcast on TV, but as I recall, Graham has been a "friend" of every President for many decades.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...m-group-removes-mormonism-from-list-of-cults/

...
The reclassification follows Romney’s visit to Graham’s mountain home last Thursday, a meeting that also included Graham’s son Franklin, who now runs the association for his 93-year-old father….

An article on the Graham website had classified Mormons, along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spiritists and Scientologists, among others, as cults.

“Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Ken Barun, the evangelical association’s chief of staff, said in a prepared statement. “We removed the ( cult) information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”

As a part-time Unitarian, I find that fascinating. The technical-sounding euphemism I've used for cult is "high-demand, coercive group," but I see less of that in UU services than I do in freethought/atheist/skeptic groups. But I suppose those are cults too.

JoyceH · Oct 18, 2012

"Billy Graham group removes Mormonism from list of cults"

Huh. You know, I see what they're trying to do there. They're trying to help Romney. I think it's going to backfire. Mormons have done a good job in the past few decades in mainstreaming themselves by downplaying how they differ from general Protestantism. But this is going to cause a lot of evangelicals who've been ignoring Romney's Mormonism to start thinking about it and talking among themselves about it, and wondering why it was listed as a cult in the first place, and what do Mormons believe in and do and have done - and if they do that research, IMO, your average evangelical is going to be creeped out.

Roger J Carlson · Oct 18, 2012

JoyceH said:
Huh. You know, I see what they're trying to do there.

I don't think they're trying to help Romney per se. Billy Graham has never been partisan. I think they're trying to not burn any bridges.

JoyceH · Oct 18, 2012

Sort of off-topic, but something I've been sort of curious about. Only Mormons can enter the Mormon temples. (Other meeting places, non-Mormons can enter.) So - is Romney's Secret Service detail all Mormon? Or does he go into the temple without his detail? Or is he simply not going into the temple during the campaign?

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 18, 2012

Roger J Carlson said:
I don't think they're trying to help Romney per se. Billy Graham has never been partisan. I think they're trying to not burn any bridges.

This would be unburning (building) a previously burned bridge. Taking Mormonism off its previous cult status is a serious change. And it is a signal of changed attitudes that implies that it's okay for Graham's followers to support Romney.

Filigree · Oct 18, 2012

Cool, I just won $25 off a friend's wager. I knew this would happen if Romney became the nominee. Graham's Southern Baptist crowd was still championing the 'Mormons are demon worshipers' stuff last spring. I guess they'd rather pretend 150 years of policy *never happened* rather than re-elect a black man.

Plot Device · Oct 18, 2012

Trying to even define the word "cult" is very problematic. My church history professor said his own personal definition is admittedly quite vague. He said he would define a cult as "any religious group which uses coercion to not only recruit but also to keep adherents." And then the word "coercion" comes into question as being a very subjective matter of degree.

The Salt Lake LDS brand of Mormonism doesn't quite fit that particular definition, but it still has some tennets and practices which just can't be reconciled with orthodox Christianity.

The thing about Graham removing Mormonism from his own personal list of cults is that in spite of his amending the list, Graham still cannot break bread with a Mormon, and a Mormon still cannot break bread with Graham. They can have lunch together, sure, but they can't partake of communion together.

kayleamay · Oct 18, 2012

Roger J Carlson said:
I don't think they're trying to help Romney per se. Billy Graham has never been partisan. I think they're trying to not burn any bridges.

Unless Rev. Graham has made a 180 degree swing, they're totally doing this to help Romney. Evangelicals believe that Mormonism is a cult, Mormons aren't Christian and that they worship false idols (modern-day prophets). It's just amazing how those fervent religious views change when a group is hopeful for political favors.

I would be more likely to believe he was sincere if he changed his position on gay marriage, because as far as most Evangelicals go Mormons and gays have something in common. They're both going to hell.

benbradley · Oct 18, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
This would be unburning (building) a previously burned bridge. Taking Mormonism off its previous cult status is a serious change. And it is a signal of changed attitudes that implies that it's okay for Graham's followers to support Romney.

I think Joyce has a good point. With a Mormon Presidential candidate, this is surely getting more press coverage than when Mormonism was added to Billy Graham's cult list.

Who were some of the most famous Mormons from decades ago (when Graham light have made this list and put Mormonism on it)? All I can think of is the Osmonds.

I shudda added a poll question: Did you know before hearing of this story that Billy Graham had Mormonism on a list of cults? The answers may suggest whether this is a net positive or net negative for Romney.

Lyv · Oct 18, 2012

Roger J Carlson said:
I don't think they're trying to help Romney per se. Billy Graham has never been partisan. I think they're trying to not burn any bridges.

This may change your mind:

Just a week after meeting and nearly endorsing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at his Montreat, N.C., home, an ailing Rev. Billy Graham is encouraging votes for candidates supporting "biblical values" that include opposition to gay marriage.

In full-page ads that will appear in more than a dozen national and battleground state newspapers before Nov. 6, Graham, 93, appeals to voters to "pray with me that remain one nation under God."

"I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman," says a full-page ad that will appear Friday in USA Today and that ran Thursday in The Wall Street Journal.

Or you may agree with Graham who is claiming through a spokesperson to be non-partisan despite his promise to help Romney any way he could.

This article says Graham's ad ran today int he Wall Street Journal.

I find it a bit disingenuous that they're claiming to be nonpartisan.

AncientEagle · Oct 18, 2012

Filigree said:
Cool, I just won $25 off a friend's wager. I knew this would happen if Romney became the nominee. Graham's Southern Baptist crowd was still championing the 'Mormons are demon worshipers' stuff last spring. I guess they'd rather pretend 150 years of policy *never happened* rather than re-elect a black man.

Graham grew up a Presbyterian and married a Presbyterian. He has mostly identified himself as an Evangelical in general terms, not as a Southern Baptist, although I believe he was originally ordained by that denomination.

And I'll point out to you, while you're painting with that broad brush, that I am a Southern Baptist, although I now consider myself just "Baptist," who supports Obama, as do a number of my Southern Baptist friends. A sizable number.

Making broad assumptions and stereotyping people can be risky.

AncientEagle · Oct 18, 2012

Lyv said:
This may change your mind:

Or you may agree with Graham who is claiming through a spokesperson to be non-partisan despite his promise to help Romney any way he could.

This article says Graham's ad ran today int he Wall Street Journal.

I find it a bit disingenuous that they're claiming to be nonpartisan.

"Disingenuous" is a polite word. More than disingenuous, I find it deliberately sneaky and even dishonest to pretend to be nonpartisan while laying out guidelines for your followers that read as if they were drawn up to fit one candidate specifically. This is similar to some of those who trumpet that they are Independent, thus setting themselves on a higher and more ethical level than those common mortals who support a specific party. Then they routinely favor the one party they prefer, occasionally throwing a meaningless tidbit of minor praise at the other party, showing that, "See, I'm really not partisan at all."

I've always considered Billy Graham, when he stays out of politics, a pretty decent guy. But let's not discuss Franklin.

Lyv · Oct 18, 2012

Yeah, it really is worse than disingenuous. He's even using the "I'm almost dead" card.

Richard Paolinelli · Oct 18, 2012

Isn't it safe to say that pretty much every religion can be classified as a "cult"?

Plot Device · Oct 18, 2012

Richard Paolinelli said:
Isn't it safe to say that pretty much every religion can be classified as a "cult"?

Depends on your definition. Defining the word "cult" is almost as slippery as defining the word "art," or even "porn." In fact, while we're on the subject of pr0n, I think most thinking people can safely claim that when it comes to defining what it is that makes a cult a cult, "I might not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."

aruna · Oct 18, 2012

Richard Paolinelli said:
Isn't it safe to say that pretty much every religion can be classified as a "cult"?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: there are several religions that have no interest in using coercion either to recruit or keep members. There are religions that don't proselytise at all. There are religions you can't even join, as they have no official membership.

Jozzy · Oct 18, 2012

Hmmm...If Romney loses, I wonder how long it will take for the quote to go back up on the website.

veinglory · Oct 19, 2012

I grew up around a lot of Mormons and near a Tabernacle. IMHO it is no more or less a cult them any other comparable religion in terms of size and doctrine (including most forms of Christianity). So any move to stop just blindly insulting another person's faith is a good one.

That said I see no evidence BG changed his position. He just removed the list of cults from the website. I am fairly sure that, as an Evangelist, he still thinks it is a cult.

Richard Paolinelli · Oct 19, 2012

aruna said:
Short answer: No.
Long answer: there are several religions that have no interest in using coercion either to recruit or keep members. There are religions that don't proselytise at all. There are religions you can't even join, as they have no official membership.

But they all have their roots to the worship of one man, or being, which to me is a cult. And they have certain "rituals" that must be followed to be of that religion/cult.

Again, just my humble opinion.

sulong · Oct 19, 2012

If I remember my mormon teaching correctly, the whole reason the angels got in touch with Joe Smith to begin with, was because all other christin religions had turned into cults, thereby needing to reinvent the one true chirstin religion.

aruna · Oct 19, 2012

Richard Paolinelli said:
But they all have their roots to the worship of one man, or being, which to me is a cult. And they have certain "rituals" that must be followed to be of that religion/cult.

Again, just my humble opinion.

The word "cult" has attained a definite negative connotation. is it fair to paint all religions with that wide and dangeruous brush? As defined above, some some sort of coercion is integral to the definition. Sure, you may have your own personal definition of a cult but it is most definitely not the generally accepted one.

And no, you do not HAVE to follow certain rituals. One can identify with a religion without following any rules or rituals whatsoever. First hand knowledge !

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 19, 2012

Richard Paolinelli said:
But they all have their roots to the worship of one man, or being, which to me is a cult. And they have certain "rituals" that must be followed to be of that religion/cult.

Again, just my humble opinion.

Several religions do not have any of these requirements. And even for those that do worship is a complicated concept.

It's hard to find a definite dividing line between cult and religion, but truth to tell a cult does not need to be a religion anymore than a religion is necessarily a cult.

To my mind, a cult is a group of people who regard obedience to one person (or group of people) as the vital determinant of their lives. It is the abrogation of human responsibility that, to me, makes a group a cult.

Thus there are cults within every human grouping (there are families that are cults, schools that are cults, faculty members at universities with cults, and even writer's groups that are cults).

It is true that a number of religions are easy spawning grounds for cultic behavior, but they are not the only such grounds, nor are they a necessary part of the religion.

Xelebes · Oct 19, 2012

Eh, to me there is the harmless cult and a harmful cult. Harmless cults may have people believing funny things and may have funny rituals that are embarassing for those who leave. Harmful cults go beyond coercion and use deprivation (swindling, starvation, human trafficking, etc.) and violence on its members to maintain the cult.

Some specific communities in the Mormon religion might fall in that, but for the most part they're fairly innocuous.

aruna · Oct 19, 2012

As Plot Device so aptly put it, as far as cults go I know it when I see it! I have a very reliable built-in sensor for these things, and the people leading them.

Mara · Oct 19, 2012

Using the original non-pejorative and academic meaning of the word, any religion that involves worship is a cult.

That being said, the term more commonly refers to small religions these days, particularly small religions that have a reputation of being strange or fringe (regardless of whether or not they do anything bad.)

And then there's the (I think) FBI definition, which focuses on coercion and such.

So, three different definitions. If you use all three, pretty much anything is a cult, but that's not necessarily a bad thing or good thing.

Billy Graham group removes Mormonism from list of cults

It's a doggy dog world

Moderator In Name Only

Nurture Phoenixes

Mildly Disturbing

A woman said to write like a man.

I'm on the phone.

It's a doggy dog world

I meant to do that.

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

I meant to do that.

A woman said to write like a man.

On a wing and a prayer

Please, sir, I want some more.

volitare nequeo

It's a matter of what is.

On a wing and a prayer

Nurture Phoenixes

Delerium ex Ennui

On a wing and a prayer

Clever User Title