While looking at distinguishing among types of religious movements, you may end on 'cult', depending on your model, if you look at definitions of 'cult' used by those researching or working with cults, it won't fit at all. The BITE model of degrees of control (controlling Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion) shows Quakers meeting none of the hallmarks of a cult... The RSOF doesn't control behavior, information, thought, or emotion of anyone, to any degree. That would eliminate it as being a cult. Most of us don't see size as being relevant to being a cult, or acceptance. It's a matter of control over the individual. If that's a coven of five under a charismatic leader, that's a cult. If it's an entire society like North Korea... Still a cult. Quakers aren't big on controlling other people, it's kind of a thing. Like AA... If you don't like it or think it weird, you might use the word to disparage Quakers, but doing so does serious damage to the concept of cult. If Quakers are a cult, everything is.
I agree with the thrust of what u say. But we should remember we once disfellowshipped people if they married a non Quaker. My grandma said it caused a problem with her grandparents marrying an Anglican so only 70 years ago that cultural legacy existed. The Quietist phase of the Society could well be accused of cultish
@@minui8758 That's a fair point. And in the early American colonial period, there were instances of significant personal pressure being applied... But in the colonial period, a lot of things were routinely done that today we'd find cultish. Could be that social control by religious figures was more accepted before...
I'd say Quaker in the 21st Century is more an approach to or school of religion broadly rather than a denomination of a specific religion. Most Quakers are Christian but there are also Quakers of other religions or none. I personally am a Pagan interested in becoming a Quaker.
You should do a video about why you choose to not join your local meeting. You seem "convinced" to me. I figure membership would follow that. Or is there too high a demand, like you have to serve on committees or something? It would be interesting to hear.
I've just found your videos and found this one particularly interesting. I myself am a Quaker Attendee who would describe myself as a Universalist Quaker. I would not describe myself as belonging to a denomination, cult or sect. If pushed I would just say that as a Quaker I simply belong to another way of religious worship.
I Ike Quakerism because there are no leaders. I go to meetings to be with other people who are friends with each other and are willing to sit together in silence for a while. That part is a lot like a Buddhist meditation - except without the top dog who Instructs everyone (usually a male but a bit less so in recent decades). At a Quaker meeting there is nobody who pretends to know more than everyone else or who “teaches” everyone because they are the wise one.
As a member of a Monthly Meeting in BYM with a Quaker ancestry, Anglican upbringing, a Catholic conversion experience, and familiarity with mainstream Protestant denominations through theological study I’d call us a very liberal Christian or in parts post Christian denomination Our nearest neighbours are Unitarianism and Congregationalism in terms of our heritage. Fox was in his setting an Independent (synonym for Congregationalist) Puritan who rejected the Calvinist theology emanating from the universities that went along with brownism. Our theology like the Unitarian’s refuses formal scholastic definitions (although most Quakers retained Trinitarian beliefs without the heavy theology used to justify them). Our structure and government method is ripped directly from the early Congregationalists but lacks their Calvinism, our beliefs are in a state of constant development and resist final definitions much like the Unitarians but without the professional ministers. Both of them are liberal Christian/PostChristian denominations so that fits best for us I’d say
Every Quaker I have ever met was an extraordinary individual. Even Richard Nixon was very honest up until he became President and was torn between many opposing forces. I still believe he was basically a good man. I think he regretted his fall from grace and was repentant by the time he died.
I'm not sure where you are getting your deffintion, but I have never heard those. I have always heard Religions are made up of many denomination/Sects, and cults are exclusive organizations who belive they are the only truth.
Very nice teaching in regard to its belief...but is it based on the faith in Paul's Gospel? or of good works which apart from the gospel taught by the apostle Paul equates to dead works? Paul preached Christ crucified, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So we have to believe that we have to except God's way of salvation. We need the power of God's spirit received only by faith, not the work of our flesh. This is the problem with cults who even claim to be Christian.
I think all of that biblical language would be cold and dogmatic and too theological for most Quakers. Just being in the silence with God is more valuable than formal ideas or systems of belief, St Paul’s or anyone else’s. A Hindu or a Pagan can do it - and God isn’t so nasty as old St Paul or Moses thought about who He is and isn’t willing to speak to. Most people feel peace and light welling up within them when they try to spend time in silence
I have just started attending my local meeting and doing my due diligence to make sure I am not joining a cult! This vid is very interesting but I question your definition of the markers of a cult. I would put it right up there at the top in terms of control, commitment and ownership of “the truth” … as other commenters have pointed out
While looking at distinguishing among types of religious movements, you may end on 'cult', depending on your model, if you look at definitions of 'cult' used by those researching or working with cults, it won't fit at all. The BITE model of degrees of control (controlling Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion) shows Quakers meeting none of the hallmarks of a cult... The RSOF doesn't control behavior, information, thought, or emotion of anyone, to any degree. That would eliminate it as being a cult.
Most of us don't see size as being relevant to being a cult, or acceptance. It's a matter of control over the individual. If that's a coven of five under a charismatic leader, that's a cult. If it's an entire society like North Korea... Still a cult. Quakers aren't big on controlling other people, it's kind of a thing. Like AA... If you don't like it or think it weird, you might use the word to disparage Quakers, but doing so does serious damage to the concept of cult. If Quakers are a cult, everything is.
I agree with the thrust of what u say. But we should remember we once disfellowshipped people if they married a non Quaker. My grandma said it caused a problem with her grandparents marrying an Anglican so only 70 years ago that cultural legacy existed. The Quietist phase of the Society could well be accused of cultish
@@minui8758 That's a fair point. And in the early American colonial period, there were instances of significant personal pressure being applied... But in the colonial period, a lot of things were routinely done that today we'd find cultish. Could be that social control by religious figures was more accepted before...
I'd say Quaker in the 21st Century is more an approach to or school of religion broadly rather than a denomination of a specific religion. Most Quakers are Christian but there are also Quakers of other religions or none. I personally am a Pagan interested in becoming a Quaker.
You should do a video about why you choose to not join your local meeting. You seem "convinced" to me. I figure membership would follow that. Or is there too high a demand, like you have to serve on committees or something? It would be interesting to hear.
I've just found your videos and found this one particularly interesting. I myself am a Quaker Attendee who would describe myself as a Universalist Quaker. I would not describe myself as belonging to a denomination, cult or sect. If pushed I would just say that as a Quaker I simply belong to another way of religious worship.
Great to have you with us! Absolutely, and that's the point, Quakerism is so hard to define!
I Ike Quakerism because there are no leaders. I go to meetings to be with other people who are friends with each other and are willing to sit together in silence for a while. That part is a lot like a Buddhist meditation - except without the top dog who Instructs everyone (usually a male but a bit less so in recent decades). At a Quaker meeting there is nobody who pretends to know more than everyone else or who “teaches” everyone because they are the wise one.
You come across as fair minded and undogmatic. That's a good commercial for Quakerism, in my book.
Thanks so much!
As a member of a Monthly Meeting in BYM with a Quaker ancestry, Anglican upbringing, a Catholic conversion experience, and familiarity with mainstream Protestant denominations through theological study I’d call us a very liberal Christian or in parts post Christian denomination
Our nearest neighbours are Unitarianism and Congregationalism in terms of our heritage. Fox was in his setting an Independent (synonym for Congregationalist) Puritan who rejected the Calvinist theology emanating from the universities that went along with brownism. Our theology like the Unitarian’s refuses formal scholastic definitions (although most Quakers retained Trinitarian beliefs without the heavy theology used to justify them). Our structure and government method is ripped directly from the early Congregationalists but lacks their Calvinism, our beliefs are in a state of constant development and resist final definitions much like the Unitarians but without the professional ministers. Both of them are liberal Christian/PostChristian denominations so that fits best for us I’d say
Every Quaker I have ever met was an extraordinary individual. Even Richard Nixon was very honest up until he became President and was torn between many opposing forces. I still believe he was basically a good man. I think he regretted his fall from grace and was repentant by the time he died.
I'm not sure where you are getting your deffintion, but I have never heard those.
I have always heard Religions are made up of many denomination/Sects, and cults are exclusive organizations who belive they are the only truth.
Very nice teaching in regard to its belief...but is it based on the faith in Paul's Gospel? or of good works which apart from the gospel taught by the apostle Paul equates to dead works? Paul preached Christ crucified, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So we have to believe that we have to except God's way of salvation. We need the power of God's spirit received only by faith, not the work of our flesh. This is the problem with cults who even claim to be Christian.
I think all of that biblical language would be cold and dogmatic and too theological for most Quakers. Just being in the silence with God is more valuable than formal ideas or systems of belief, St Paul’s or anyone else’s. A Hindu or a Pagan can do it - and God isn’t so nasty as old St Paul or Moses thought about who He is and isn’t willing to speak to. Most people feel peace and light welling up within them when they try to spend time in silence
I have just started attending my local meeting and doing my due diligence to make sure I am not joining a cult! This vid is very interesting but I question your definition of the markers of a cult. I would put it right up there at the top in terms of control, commitment and ownership of “the truth” … as other commenters have pointed out
I am a Friend in a sect of one. Just me.