Adopting a different term to replace the studiously
neutral 'cult,' say 'new religious movement,' would soon be met by
the same cries of 'bigotry!' The reader will notice in the above
discussion from Bruce R. McConkie's 'Mormon Doctrine,' that the
complainant sect, Mormon in this case, demands to be placed on a plane equivalent to
Christendom, which category must expand to include every other Biblically deviant sect.
Thus it is Christianity, not Mormonism, that stands
accused of sectarianism! The complainant sect positions itself as the default
choice versus 'apostate' Christianity. It should be apparent that
'apostate' Christendom cannot adopt a classificatory system of this
sort, because these varied unbiblical novelties, Mormonism,
Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science et al, cannot all occupy the
default position versus Biblical Christianity! If the toll to be
paid to avoid hearing the cat-call 'bigot' is to adopt an impossible
classificatory system in which every small dissident group in
receipt of 'new light' must be placed on an equal correlative plane with Christendom,
which must then in turn re-absorb this aberrant group before turning
its attention to the next, then rational minds must resign
themselves to hearing the cat-call of 'bigotry.' Classifying the 'cults'
together, even though they hate it, at least allows the central
category of 'Christendom' to remain stable and uniform.
Which of the new religious movements does not agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is
absurd: 'ATHANASIAN CREED. . .Of all the major creeds, the
so-called Athanasian is by far the most incomprehensible and
difficult to understand. Of it Elder James E. Talmage says: 'It would
be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and
contradictions expressed in words as few.' (Articles of Faith, p.
48)." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 57). And yet
if you ask them what, by contrast with orthodoxy, is the solution,
the answer is a bedlam of ever-rising voices: polytheism, no
Arianism; though perhaps the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses can agree on 'henotheism.'
But then the Unitarians and 'Oneness' Pentecostals will not agree.
One cannot agree with the Catholics that the Bible is the root cause of
this confusion, because the men behind these start-ups are not learned Bible scholars. Neither Mohammed ibn Abdallah, nor
Charles Taze Russell, nor Joseph Smith, ever in his life gave an accurate
verbal summary of this doctrine, nor isolated the scriptures used in
its defense, nor explained them otherwise. Joseph Smith was
a man who gazed at peep-stones hidden in his hat to find buried
treasure. Mohammed ibn Abdallah was a camel thief. Charles Taze Russell was
the most respectable of the lot, but he was a man without knowledge
or insight. If there is, as they claim, some insufficiency in God's revealed word,
then why is it left up to men like these to discover it?