From judy@devnet.la.locus.com Sat Feb 15 04:30:12 1992 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10202; Sat, 15 Feb 92 04:30:12 EST Received: from rodan.UU.NET by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA22392; Sat, 15 Feb 92 04:30:05 -0500 Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA25857; Sat, 15 Feb 92 04:29:18 -0500 Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02945; Sat, 15 Feb 92 04:29:15 -0500 Received: from lcc.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 042841.2564; Sat, 15 Feb 1992 04:28:41 EST Received: by orchard.locus.com (5.61-AIX-1.2/2.29 ) from altair.la.locus.com with SMTP (from judy@devnet.la.locus.com/judy@devnet.la.locus.com) id AA28010 for soc-religion-christian; Fri, 14 Feb 92 16:36:38 -0800 Received: by devnet.la.locus.com (5.61-AIX-1.2/0.07d) id AA903409 for uunet!soc-religion-christian; Fri, 14 Feb 92 16:35:59 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 16:35:59 -0800 From: Judy Leedom Tyrer Message-Id: <9202150035.AA903409@devnet.la.locus.com> To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: judy From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) Subject: What is a cult? (was Re: Witness Bashing?) Message-ID: <1992Feb15.003356.903359@locus.com> Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles References: Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 00:33:56 GMT Lines: 68 Having been a member of a cult I think I have a little insight into this... There are several criteria used to judge if a religion of philosophy is actually a cult. Not all these criteria must be met, but if most are, then you are dealing with a cult. This is culminated from readings I have done about cults from other ex-cult members and deprogrammers. 1) The founder of the group is living and is set up as a figurehead. Most of the teachings come from personal revelations by this founder. He is revered and PROFITS by being the founder of the cult. (Note that just because the founder dies the cult does not cease being a cult). 2) The cult members identify themselves as "inside" and everyone else as "outside" the cult. This is VERY important. If you are "inside" you are saved, wonderful, etc. To be outside is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. This is crucial because it affects the mind control issue. If you can damn people by ostracising them, you can control their behavior. 3) Cults have their own language. They make up words and if you are not a cult member you would have difficulty understanding their conversation. The scientologists use words like "wog". 4) Most cults have as one of their prime missions the conversion of others into the cult. 5) They do not participate in actually bettering society, only in bettering themselves. All monies are donated to the organization, the actual members receive little and are encouraged to donate lots, and the leaders keep it all. 6) They generally advocate isolating the person from his or her previous friends and family, unless of course those friends and family choose to join. This is important since generally they don't want their ideas too freely questioned by the initiate. 7) They use some method of mind control or brain washing. I mentioned threatening ostracization as a method of mind control above. Other methods include hypnotic services, food or sleep deprivation (we got 5 hours sleep a night and only ate raw fruits and vegetables our first three weeks), never being allowed time alone to think, exhaustive physical exercise, etc. The insidious thing about mind control is that IMO everyone is susceptible to it and you don't know its happening to you when it is happening. 8) Members are given very little time to pursue their own hobbies, goals, and ideas. All time is taken up by the cult. 9) There are "mysteries" or hidden teachings only divulged to those who achieve a certain level within the group. 10) They rigidly control the behavior of the members of the groups, often having little gestapo type groups who are responsible for administering discipline to those who do not follow the rules. There are probably some other criteria which I don't recall. We must each judge for ourselves whether something is a cult and whether just being a cult makes it inherently evil. What I do believe, and believe strongly, is that mind control is EVIL. If you are involved with a group that meets many, or even any of these criteria, take some time off. Get away from the group and examine your thinking. If the teachings of the group are true, you will always be able to go back. If false, don't you want to know? -- I finally decided what I want on my tombstone... "Here lies Judy Leedom Tyrer. The world will never see another like her. We are undecided on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing." From @bloom-beacon.mit.edu:news@lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 17 00:13:53 1992 Received: from BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21549; Mon, 17 Feb 92 00:13:53 EST Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA12894; Mon, 17 Feb 92 00:13:44 EST Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: nntp.lcs.mit.edu!towfiq From: Mark Towfiq Subject: Re: What is a cult? (was Re: Witness Bashing?) In-Reply-To: judy@locus.com's message of 17 Feb 92 02:35:45 GMT Message-Id: Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Reply-To: towfiq@ftp.com Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA References: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 05:12:48 GMT Lines: 61 Apparently-To: I think Judy's defining characteristics of a cult were right on the mark. I thought I would add a little to the discussion. The "Council on Mind Abuse" is an independent, non-profit organization which educates people on cults, and helps people who have had some harmful involvement with them. Here are a list of a few key identifying features of a harmful cult, from the organization's introductory pamphlet: REPLACEMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS - Destroying pre-cult families by arranging cult marriages and "families". CONFUSING DOCTRINE - Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex features on an incomprehensible doctrine. REJECTION OF OLD VALUES - Accelerating acceptance of new life style by constantly denouncing former values and beliefs. UNCOMPROMISING RULES - Inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate mealtimes, bathroom breaks, and use of medications. VERBAL ABUSE - Desensitizing through bombardment with foul and abusive language. DRESS CODES - Removing individuality by demanding conformity to the group by dress code. CONFESSION - Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings and doubts. NO QUESTIONS - Accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions. GUILT - Reinforcing the need for `salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyle. FINANCIAL COMMITMENT - Achieving increased dependence on the group by `burning bridges' to past, through the donation of assets. FEAR - Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life, or limb for the slightest `negative' thought, word, or deed. The Council on Mind Abuse can be reached at (416) 944-0080, or by writing to them at COUNCIL ON MIND ABUSE 40 St. Clair Avenue East Suite 203 Toronto, Ont. CANADA M4T 1M9 -- Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818 O SON OF DUST! The wise are they that speak not unless they obtain a hearing, even as the cup-bearer, who proffereth not his cup till he findeth a seeker, and the lover who crieth not out from the depths of his heart until he gazeth upon the beauty of his beloved. Wherefore sow the seeds of wisdom and knowledge in the pure soil of the heart, and keep them hidden, till the hyacinths of divine wisdom spring from the heart and not from mire and clay. -- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah From JEK@cu.nih.gov Wed Nov 17 03:47:36 1993 Received: from cu.nih.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA19406; Wed, 17 Nov 93 03:47:36 EST Message-Id: <9311170847.AA19406@aramis.rutgers.edu> To: christian@cs.rutgers.edu From: JEK@cu.nih.gov Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 03:45:51 EST Subject: RE: Unification Church (Moonies) Michael Scott Armel of Yale writes: > I was amazed to find that the "Moonies" believe that Sun Myung > Moon is Jesus Christ returned! I read much of their material, and > their teaching is very sound and Christ centered. They teach that God has made three attempts to set up a Perfect Family on earth. First, He tried through Adam, but Adam fell. Next, He tried through Jesus, but Jesus was killed before He could marry and start a family. His third effort is through Moon, who has founded a family. Moon and his wife (I believe that he changed wives partway through the process) are the spiritual father and mother of their followers. Their material, especially their material addressed to prospective converts from Christianity, is full of references to Christ, but their beliefs about Him are completely incompatible with the New Testament. This is typical of cults. Instead of saying, "Christ and Christianity are all wrong," they say, "We believe in Christ, but you Christians have only a partial understanding of Him. For a deeper insight and a fuller understanding, you need to rely on us." Some years ago, a group I was with did some printing on a press in the basement of the local "Moonie" headquarters. I saw a pamphlet on a shelf, glanced through it, and asked a "Moonie" a question about their beliefs, based on what I had just read. He asked me, "Where did you hear about that?" I mentioned the pamphlet, and he said, "That should not have been left lying around. You are not supposed to hear about that." In an unrelated conversation, other members of the group freely stated that there are doctrines that are not revealed to anyone until he is firmly committed to the group. If you wish to read a more detailed discussion by a Christian, you might try the book, THE MOON IS NOT THE SON, available in paperback in many Christian bookstores. I have not read it myself, and so cannot comment on it. Yours, James Kiefer From news@indiana.edu Wed Nov 17 13:10:05 1993 Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23348; Wed, 17 Nov 93 13:10:05 EST Received: from usenet.ucs.indiana.edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA14971; Wed, 17 Nov 93 13:09:59 EST Message-Id: <9311171809.AA14971@rutgers.edu> Received: by usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (5.65c+/9.6jsm) id AA09256; Wed, 17 Nov 1993 13:09:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 13:09:51 -0500 From: "USENET News System" To: soc-religion-christian@rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: bronze.ucs.indiana.edu!anachem From: anachem@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (fr dcn mark gilstrap) Subject: Re: Children of God (River Phoenix) Message-ID: Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: bronze.ucs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University References: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 18:09:46 GMT In article Steve.Hayes@f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org writes: >I knew a group of them in Durban, South Africa, between 1974-1976. In 1974 >they seemed OK, but in 1976 they seemed to be a bit too dominated by their >leader Moses David, whom they called Mo. Two of our very close friends, after a couple of meetings/dinners with members of this group in 1971, suddenly and unexpectedly quit their jobs, sold everthing that wouldn't fit (in their car or in with the group ideas), and took off as if we would never hear from them again. We lived across the alley and were in close contact daily. I also worked with both members of this couple. The day they quit theri jobs, their eyes looked very strange indeed. I have only seen anything like it in photos of Charles Manson, or of the monk Rasputin. Believe me, up close this look is very spooky, especially in someone you know and love. This was an extremely sudden change and it all happened over a weekend when we didn't happen to see them. What a shock - and I will never forget their eyes and the look of total disdain as they drove off with us literally begging them to wait and talk about it, sleep on it, etc... The last thing I said, in love, was that this was wrong and that they were wrong. This nagged at them while they were in the cult. If I had feared to be so "judgemental", they might still be under the demonic influence of this group. Never fear to tell the truth in love. In this day and age, you may be the first one to do so in many people's lives. >It seemed to me that they were in danger of becoming a cult, and putting more >emphasis on Mo than on Jesus. A lot of their litereature began to be filled >with sexual innuendoes, and they chaged their name the "The Family of Love" >soon afterwards. Becoming a cult? Maybe it took a few years for the reality to reach S Africa. This was a powerful cult in 1971 or earlier. Moses was diabolically controlling people like my friends - of this I have no doubt. The sexual oppression was like the physical absurdities of their everyday life, but it helped wake up some of the robots. After a year or more, my friends arrived back home, penniless and awake. The intensity of training was such that they learned many things - at least the husband did - about the scriptures (most wrong of course) and the wife... well I can't say what terrible things happened to this attractive woman. I don't think she overcame the experience very well. She left her husband and moves in lesbian circles in Dallas, her hometown. I have not been following this thread, but I saw Steve Hayes' name and thought maybe it was something to look at. Such groups do not lead men to Christ or to his Church. While there are seemingly good aspects, they are only diabolical illusions. There is no grace in the machinations of such cults, even if there appears to be good being done. There is of course God's Grace available to anyone at any time if they simply cry out to Him. But the action of that Grace is to move the recipients to His Church, not to in any way validate their current associations or experiences. From jfb@macsch.com Tue Oct 4 20:52:29 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA14770; Tue, 4 Oct 94 20:52:29 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxkfr10303; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 20:52:28 -0400 Received: from macsch.com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxkfr20013; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 20:52:20 -0400 Received: by macsch.com (5.61/SMI-4.1-10) id AA06858; Tue, 4 Oct 94 17:52:19 -0700 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: jfb From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette) Subject: Re: IS CHRISTIANITY A CULT? Message-Id: Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 00:52:15 GMT Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Linda Price writes: :{ a cult is } >:2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual. >:3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious. >I think we have a problem here. WHO regards a religion as >unorthodox or spurious? Other cults (see #2 above). Yes. And just what is the "problem"? Christianity started out as a cult in the #3 sense. The definition is a neutral dictionary definition. Orthodox Christianity is perfectly within its rights to regard religions such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses as cults when using this 3rd definition. If I had gone on to define unorthodox or spurious explicitly in terms of what orthodox Christianity regards as unorthodox or spurious, then you would be justified in believing that there is problem in my use of the term. The problem with your problem is that I did not. The "problem" as I see it is that the term cult is not used in that sense very often when refering to religious groups such as Christians, Mormons, or Branch Davidians. >That seems clear, but are these new definitions clear or useful? The three dictionary definitions I gave are not new. They are abbreviations of definitions given in Webster's Ninth New Collegate Dictionary. I looked up the meaning of the term in several dictionarys. Nothing varies much. >:The new meaning is as follows: >: A group or organization that uses coercive psychological >: systems to recruit and keep members. >To whom might we attribute this new meaning? Is Mr. John Baskette the >originator of this new definition? In part. After reading a fair amount of anti-cult literature from places such as the FACTnet BBS [1], the Cult Awareness Network, numerous internet posts and books such as Steve Hassan's _Combatting Cult Mind Control_, I did not find a single concise definition of the term. It does not mean that one has not been offered. My reading is not at all complete. I have not read Dr. Enroth's _Churches That Abuse_ or anything by Dr. Margaret Singer. Let me quote to you from Steve Hassan's book on the subject. BTW, while Hassan does have a masters in psychology from Cambridge College, he is most noted for being one of the country's leading "cult deprogrammers" or exit counselors. (He does not use coercive methods - more on that later.) He was at one time an Assistant director in the Unification Church (aka the Moonies) before he was "deprogrammed". (The list of quoted endorsements of this book read like a Who's Who in Cult research. Everyone from Dr. Singer to Steve Allen to Rabbi Harold Kushner to the Christian Research Journal are quoted.) From _Combatting Cult Mind Control_, (Park Street Press; Rochester, Vermont, 1990), p. 37: "The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the prevalence of unethical coercive mind control by describing the different areas of society in which cults arise and the techniques used for recruitment. Methods of operation are what make cults destructive. How a group recruits and what happens during membership determine whether or not it respects people's rights to *choose for themselves what they want to believe.* If deception, hypnosis, and other mind control techniques are used to recruit and control followers, then people's rights are being infringed upon. 'Cults' are not new. Throughout history, groups of enthusiasts have sprung up around charismatic leaders of every possible description. But in recent years, something has been added: the systematic use of modern psychological techniques to reduce a person's will and gain control over his or her thoughts, feelings, and behavior. While we usually think of 'cults' as being religious (the first definition of 'cult' in *Webster's Third New International Dictionary* is 'religious practice: worship'), actually they are often completely secular. *Webster's* also defines 'cult' as 'a usually small or narrow circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to some artistic or intellectual program, tendency, or figure (as one of limited popular appeal).' That second definition begins to come close to the meaning of a modern cult but falls a bit short. Modern cults have *virtually unlimited* appeal. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to many groups from now on as simply 'cults.' You may assume, though, that I use that term only for groups which fit the criteria for being destructive." Note: I am using the astericks about the text (*the text*) in the above quote to show the author's italic text. What I am not happy about is that Mr. Hassan, after discussing the definition of a cult, does not define the term as he uses it. The FACTnet BBS article _Coercive Psychological Systems_ defines such systems as follows: "F.A.C.T uses 'coercive psychological systems' as an umbrella term to include all types of unethical mind control such as brainwashing, thought reform, destructive persuasion and coercive persuasion. Because different terms are used in different contexts, it was necessary to select one umbrella term to encompass all references to this growing danger. The media and general public call it 'mind control' or 'brainwashing.' Social scientists use the terms 'thought reform' and 'coercive persuasion,' among others. In the courts, all of these terms may be used separately or in combination with traditional legal terms such as fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction acts." Based on this literature, I proposed a definition. It is not at all entirely the product of my imagination. The words and ideas I use are taken right out of the available literature such as what I just quoted. >Do any organizations claim such tactics? Not that I know of. If none do, who will determine >which organizations might be dishonest? That's a good question. I would say pyschologists, religious researchers, cult researchers, law enforcement, etc. The issue will always be controversial, but that does not mean that a wide range of authorities cannot come to a consensus as to what groups merit the cult label and what groups do not. Nor does it mean that the criteria used are entirely subjective. There are common and public standards of honesty and ethics used to make such determinations even if the deontological foundations for such standards are not univerally acknowledged or agreed upon. For the most part such authorities agree that groups like Scientology, the Unification Church and the Branch Davidians merit the cult label. Groups like the Catholic Church or the Mormons do not merit the label. I think such a consensus and a definition such as I gave is useful even if it so happens that genuine "mind control" is simply not possible. In fact, I tend to think that such "mind control" is not possible. An interesting article on this subject, "Overcoming the Bondage of Victimization", is to be found in the latest _Cornerstone_ magazine (issue #102/103) >:"Coercive psychological systems" refer to "all types of unethical mind >:control such as brainwashing, thought reform, destructive persuasion and >:coercive persuasion." > >Circular thinking here. What is ethical mind control? Since when do my remarks imply the existence of ethical mind control? Is it always evident that "mind control" is unethical? I do not view the adjective as self-evidentially redundant or as implying anything about the existence of ethical mind control. As you can see I have pulled the description right out of the FACTnet article. I did not attribute it in my post, but I mention the article in my proposed FAQ entry. Defining "Coercive psychological systems" as mind control or brainwashing does not strike me as circular. If you want more specifics you might wish to check out the FACTnet article yourself. What religious >or normative organization does not use some kind of coercive >persuasion? Very few. Peer pressure is not force. The FACTnet article I quoted above uses coercion in the dictionary sense as they explain: "The Definition Coercion is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as '1. To force to act or think in a certain manner, 2. To dominate, restrain, or control by force, 3. To bring about by force.' Coercive psychological systems are behavioral change programs which use psychological force in a coercive way to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or designated set of beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors." The aritcle goes on to describe the various tactics that constitute "psychological force". >Who decides; who's values will be used to construct this typology? It's a consensus mostly derived from psychological and sociological studies. >:The vast majority of churches - even the one's you describe - gain >:converts through one on one evangelism and preaching. Members are >:not forced by any means to do anything. > >I think this statement is a little naive, and not very helpful, since >most organizations we might label as "cult" claim to do just this. And they would be wrong. You might wish to get Steve Hassan's book (mind you I disagree with him about mind control) and read the section where he describes his induction into the Unification church. Very little preaching or evangelism was involved. In fact, he was *lied too* when he was told that the group was not a religious organization in his initial encounters with the group. The point that the Hassans and Dr. Margaret Singers of the world are trying to make is that these cult groups use a form of psychological force to recruit and keep members. Evangelism and most forms of preaching are not regarded as forms of psychological force. >Any derogatory definition will probably be denied by the groups we might >wish to call cults. I understand why you might think that some of the dictionary definitions and my proposed definition would be derogatory. Most, myself included, are very much opposed to the use of coercive psychological tactics. The definitions, however, are not inherently derogatory. I would suggest that sociologist have constructed >definitions which are more useful. Most "cults" accept these definitions, >because they are based of factual rather than normative descriptions of >organizations. That is a helpful suggestion. _The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology_ by Professor Gordon Marshall (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) defines the term as follows: "cult In the anthropological meaning, a cult is a set of practices and beliefs of a group, in relation to a local god. In sociology, it is a small group of religious activists, whose beliefs are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic. Although it is related to the concept of sect, the cult is not in Western society associated with mainstream Christianity. As a scientific term, it is often difficult to dissociate the idea of a cult from its commonsense pejorative significance, and it does not have a precise scientific meaning." I would suggest that this sociological definition fits well with the #2 dictionary definition that I gave in my earlier post. I also suggest that it is inadequate as a definition as the term is currently commonly used. I also suggest that the definition I gave centers factually on the tactics used by a group and that the definition is not normative as in conforming to the standards of a particular group such as Christianity. >The typology suggested by Howard Becker in _Systematic Sociology_ >(1932), or Milton Yinger, is a reasonable place to start. I do not doubt that these are good authorities, I may even look them up, but I do suggest that a date of 1932 is rather outdated. It predates the Korean brainwashing experiments and the development of so-called mind control techniques that people such as Mr. Hassan claim that cults use. 1932 pre-dates the modern use of the term "cult". Was 1932 a typo? Perhaps the word "cult" is so loaded that it is not possible to dissociate the pejorative or derogatory implications, but the term is used. It is necessary to address just how it is used in order to understand if it can fairly be applied to various religions such as Christianity. I may revise my proposed FAQ entry to include some of the material I have quoted here. John Baskette jfb@kaiwan.com [1] An extensive database of online information regarding mind control cults is available from the FACTnet BBS. (Fighting Against Coercive Tactics BBS) Most of these documents are available free of charge and can be obtained by calling 1-303-530-1942.