The word "cult" has metamorphosized over the years.
It's basic meaning is "to cultivate".
For many centuries the term simply meant a devotion or system of worship.
However, today the word "cult" has become largely a catch-all label, for any group, religion or lifestyle which someone doesn't understand, or with which they happen to disagree.
Some have set up guidelines to identify cults which include things like:
1) A centralized form of leadership that rules with unquestioned authority
2) A body of convictions, beliefs, and practices set forth boldly as "the truth"
3) A compelling presentation of the group vision to prospects that is inviting and challenging
4) A series of manipulative socializing sessions to instil psychological dependence on the group
5) A definable process of group dynamics used to unethically control and manipulate members
6) A history of abuses of authority by group leaders freely using deception and fear tactics
7) A history of psychological and spiritual abuses of group members that destroy lives

-------------
While there are dangerous cults out there, that we need to be aware of, who use such things as "mind control" and manipulative methods, with one person setting himself up as the "god" of the group, arbitrarily ruling them with a hand of iron, yet we find evangelicals coming up with other meanings for the word--

In this broadening definition basically any group that has beliefs different from the mainstream accepted beliefs is called a cult.
Couple that with the increasingly negative connotations the word is gathering to it's meaning and the growing trend of "mainstream" Christianity in thinking they alone are the Spirit directed, truth of God people, and we see where this gathering momentum surrounding the word "cult" is leading.
It's rather scary!

Some have tried to oppose this gathering of all religions who don't agree with the mainstream and placing them under the increasingly negative term "cult". These people have suggested using names like "alternate religions" or "minority religious groups", but they have been opposed by Christian mainstream leaders.

Alan Gomes, "Unmasking The Cults" (Zondervan, 1995) writes: "The term cult suggests an absolute standard of evaluation, which sociology - by its nature - can not provide. It is therefore well suited to describe theological heterodoxy, which is determined by an absolute, objective and unchanging standard."

These evangelicals see anyone departing from what they term "orthodox Christianity" and the "true gospel" as being a "cult".
So we cam see they will set their own interpretation of Christianity up as the "absolute, objective, and unchanging standard", and place all who don't agree under the increasingly obnoxious term "cult".

Amazingly as things shape up most Christians, while casting scorn upon the minority religions as "cults", will cast aside the "absolute standards of evaluation" and look to a finite human being as the representation of Christ on earth.

Studying the metamorphosis of the word CULT, one can not fail to sense its cruel irony.
The label (libel?) "cult" is increasingly used to
replace the traditional term "heresy", as used by the medieval church.
Now, ecumenical Christianity (calling itself mainstream) is increasingly throwing out the word CULT to anyone not within her embracing fold, and the meaning becomes automatically a cult/heretic.

Use of euphemism tends to sanitize humanities judgemental damnation. To call legitimate, free and conscientious, worshippers, who exercise their right to freedom of worship
"heretics" would sound harsh in the mouths of Christians who say "love" is their law.
But using the euphemism "cult" ( a word that in it's primal stage meant "a system of worship") avoids this confrontation, BUT since that word has now gathered to itself such a
charge of negative association, everyone "understands" that the one labeled a cultist must
obviously be guilty and therefore shunned or pressed to repent .

It is a clever and poisonous means of character
assassination, carrying relatively little risk to the user.

As I read these posts it appears to me that some are confusing "sect" and "cult".

SDAs are clearly a sect.

As I see it, the SDA chruch is NOT a cult. However, some SDAs appear to have some aspects of a cult.

I've watched the video referred to a number of times. It is full of half-truths and false information. It was given to me by a coworker of mine who has never studied SDA beliefs as written by SDAs and refuses to read anything that I give him. I have found that very few people study in order to find out the truth about other people's religious faith. Most are only interested in finding fault with other people's beliefs.
I am studying with a Jehovah's Witness man whom I have been meeting for over two months. He has yet to ask me what I believe, and the only time I have told him what I believe, he got upset and threatened to stop studying with me. I am studying with him in order to learn what he believes, but it would be nice if he showed an interest in what I believe, too, rather than just wanting to hear me repeat his interpretations. Unfortunately he is typical of most people I come in contact with.

I don't mind at all if people think of the SDA church as a sect. The Bible says that early Christianity was viewed as a sect. What's most important is that people understand what we believe and practice, such as that we have love for one another and that we believe in and practice all of the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. I believe that would certainly qualify us as a sect.

I've read Martin's book on the cults. He's wrong himself on many doctrical issues, such as the Atonement, the High Priesthood of Christ, the Sabbath, the law and the gospel, the state of the dead, the gift of prophecy, etc. Frankly I think it was wrong of SDAs to try to convince Martin and his followers that SDAs qualify as evangelical Christians. We ought to be concerned in what God thinks of us, not in what faulty human beings think. Apparently some of our leaders at that time were so concerned about what Martin thought of us that they were willing to change our doctrines so that he would think more highly of us than he did before. That was not right. Jim

Richard,
When you say Ellen White was/is a destructive force in your life, you show that you are not able to step back and look at Ellen White objectively. You need to stop thinking of your resentments and look at the larger picture.
For one thing, you choose to be a member of the church which would not exist without Ellen White. Even you have to be able to see that her influence on the church has been very great and that that influence is a positive one.
You also have to be able to see that the SDA church must have a false prophet if Ellen White is not a true prophet. Ellen White was either a true prophet of God or else she was a false prophet. I don't see how there can be a third alternative. Jim