by DannyHaszard 55 Replies latest watchtower scandals
oops, sorry, the Branch Davidians (still around by the way) are an offshoot of SDA not Mormonism. Still, I would consider the specific group that centered around David Koresh in Waco to be a cult. However, I am not sure if I would consider the other groups that are still around to be a cult, though they may fit the definition. I don't know enough about their current operations or culture.
-Eduardo
Eduardo,
I have to agree with Atlantis. Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous for you to preach to the choir of ex-witnesses trying to convince them Jw's are not a 'cult'? I mean let's look at your arguments:
:I have done pretty extensive research on cults, cultism, new religious movements, etc.
And your research allows you to conclude that we're all a bunch of bitter losers who are calling the WTS a cult to make themselves feel better? And all those stories about indoctination high-control are BS?
:With the exception of the anti-cultists (ACMers) and the counter-cultists (CCMers), generally evangelistic religionists, no objective sociologists or social psychologists label either the main church of LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.
The average sociologist doesn't know half the things about the WTS that most of the posters on this forum do. It takes some time to see through WTS's PR. So this appeal to authority is not aprticularly convincing.
:Jehovah's Witnesses are presently a sect of 19th Century Second Adventism and eventually will evolve (as many churches do) into a mainsteam (adventist) branch of Christianity and will be recognized as such.
Sounds like you base your analysis on a lot of wishful thinking. JW's are a sect, not mainstream yet, and for the time being they're what? What is your definition of a cult anyway? Before we start arguing any further (perhaps on another thread so as not to hijack this one), we might take this advice:
http://www.spiritwatch.org/cultdef.htm
As a professor of religious studies who specializes in research, writing, and teaching about America's alternative religions, I can tell all of you that the word "cult" has become an essentially contested concept. That is, like many other words, there is no universally agreed-upon meaning. Before one can know what the term means one must know the user and his or her context religiously and socially. I tell my students there are four major approaches to using the term: journalistic (tends to be sensational), theological (defines "cult" by some standard of orthodox truth), sociological (uses "cult" to describe groups that self-consciously oppose the mainstream of culture), and psychological (uses a standard of psychological manipulation and coercion). What counts as a cult differs by these varying definition. All three may agree on a certain group being a "cult" such as Jim Jones' "Peoples' Temple." But a theologian might label the LDS church a "cult" simply because it diverges considerably from standard orthodox Christianity, while a sociologist would say it isn't a cult due to its size and influence. So maybe it would be best to stop arguing about what is a "cult" until you make clear your own orientation--that is, approach to defining the term.
Pole
So, Eduardo, using these criteria:
1) journalistic (tends to be sensational),
That's not a very tangible criterion, so we might as well ignore it.
2) theological (defines "cult" by some standard of orthodox truth),
I don't care about the orthodox truth either, since it's not objective.
3) sociological (uses "cult" to describe groups that self-consciously oppose the mainstream of culture)
JW's are definitely a cult by this criterion.
4) psychological (uses a standard of psychological manipulation and coercion).
JW's are definitely a cult by this criterion.
Would you agree?
Pole
Dear Pole:
I have to agree with Atlantis. Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous for you to preach to the choir of ex-witnesses trying to convince them Jw's are not a 'cult'? I mean let's look at your arguments:
The saying "preach to the choir" means to speak to one or an audience which is favorably disposed to the speaker's views. If I thought for one moment that many of the forum participants on JWD would be "convinced" to view JWs favorably that would indeed be ridiculous. Although I have seem many posters/forum participants refer to JWs as cult, I am not sure that this is universal.
In any case, if I expected my view on this matter to be popular not only would it be self-delusional it would be fruitless. So I do not express it to please anyone or for popularity's sake, I express it because I believe it to be the truth. An unpopular truth, but the truth none the less.
have done pretty extensive research on cults, cultism, new religious movementsAtlantis told me to do more research. The above statement was only my reply that I have researched the topic pretty thoroughly and continue to do so. Thus I believe that I speak with some understanding of the topic. Persons can disagree and persons may argue that I represent no authority on the matter, but thankfully those are not prerequisites for participating in the discussion.
And your research allows you to conclude that we're all a bunch of bitter losers who are calling the WTS a cult to make themselves feel better? And all those stories about indoctination high-control are BS?
I stated no such position. Many have legitimate gripes and criticism of the Society/JWs/the Org including myself. Some here have had terrible and sometimes tragic experiences with JW individuals or circumstances.
Acknowledging that JWs are not a cult does not minimize both the need for change within the religion nor the experiences of forum participants.
As for why some here label JWs a cult that is for each individual to explain.
In my opinion, some are bandwagoners who haven't really investigated the topic - especially those many forum participants who have never actually been a JW. Some subscribed to the theological component of the definition and thus view JWs (and others) as (non-Christian, non-Orthodox) cults. Some misread the (academic) literature, don't appreciate the literature's flaws and background and don't apply the literature objectively and thus erroneously conclude that such things as Hassan's BITE or Lifton's criteria actually apply to JWs. Others are so angry at JWs that they fully understand the negative connotations of the word "cult" in our society and embrace it regardless of whether it actually applies or not. And finally, many who observe what are objectively "cult-like" features of Jehovah's Witnesses fail to appreciate that groups may have some degree of high-social control for example and yet not be a cult.
As for myself, I acknowledge that there are some cultic qualities of the culture of JWs but have concluded based upon my understanding of the literature and based upon my personal experience both in and out of the religion that JWs are not a cult.I acknowledge that from a religio-sociological view, JWs are a SECT of 19th Century Adventism along with its cousins SDA, Contemporary Adventists & Bible Students.
:With the exception of the anti-cultists (ACMers) and the counter-cultists (CCMers), generally evangelistic religionists, no objective sociologists or social psychologists label either the main church of LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.
The average sociologist doesn't know half the things about the WTS that most of the posters on this forum do. It takes some time to see through WTS's PR.
It is true that the literature is scant. For being one of the largest International religions in the world, Jehovah's Witnesses are remarkably understudied by sociologists and social psychologists.Nevertheless, it is these persons' job to study such groups and when they do engage in such study they follow rigorous and accepted academic procedures and methodologies and their results are often remarkably perceptive. Sociologists who specialize on studying New Religious Movements (the term most favored by Sociologists) are adept at cutting through the "public relations" efforts of the groups they study and are aware of other observational biases that may arise.
Sounds like you base your analysis on a lot of wishful thinking. JW's are a sect, not mainstream yet, and for the time being they're what? What is your definition of a cult anyway? Before we start arguing any further (perhaps on another thread so as not to hijack this one), we might take this advice: http://www.spiritwatch.org/cultdef.htm
I don't find anything to disagree with in the professor's statement. As for my "definition" of a cult you can review what I have to say extensively on this page here:
http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.info/notacult.html
In a nutshell, I tend to agree with the Sociological-Psychological viewpoint and I reject Orthodoxy as a legitimate component for definining a religious cult due to an understanding that there actually is no such thing within the early Christian history. There were competing schools of thought regarding Jesus and his nature and the scriptures and what has come to be defined as orthodox is merely the history written by the winners of these controversies.
-Eduardo
Dear Eduardo,
First of all thank you for improving my English. I may have misused the idiomatic meaning of the expression and I stand corrected, but I think you got the gist of what I was trying to say. Anyway as to your reply:
:In a nutshell, I tend to agree with the Sociological-Psychological viewpoint and I reject Orthodoxy as a legitimate component for definining a religious cult due to an understanding that there actually is no such thing within the early Christian history. There were competing schools of thought regarding Jesus and his nature and the scriptures and what has come to be defined as orthodox is merely the history written by the winners of these controversies.
As you may have noticed in my last post, I wrote that I don't depend on the orthodoxy argument in calling the witnesses a cult, and that I consider it rather useless from my point of view (I'm not a believer any longer).
The problem is with the term 'cult' itself, and you seem to agree that the other (sociological and psychological criteria are met - at least to a large extent). Also, you seem to depend too much on refuting the first two criteria, which I think are useless and confusing indeed.
Here are the conclusions from the site you directed me to. I like the overall analysis which is very fair at times, but the conclusions seem to run counter to the preceding agruments:
Th fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult may be difficult to swallow for opposers and for former members who have been hurt in some way by individual Jehovah's Witnesses or by the Organization. And no doubt, persons with their own agendas to promote will continue to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. But these claims do not change the situation. Anyone who does look at Witnesses objectively will, I believe, reach the same conclusion.
This is rather hypocritical. The author accuses ex-JWs of promoting agendas while revealing his own agenda in the very next paragraph:
And yet, as pointed out above, there are several aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are cultic, some to a very mild degree and a few that are seriously disconcerting. These points need to be addressed and all Witnesses should be especially interested to strive to reform these areas not only due to outside criticism but for the betterment of the Organizaton and the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This is a laughable conclusion which supports my observation about the amount of wishful thinking involved. Jehovah's Witnesses should "strive to reform these areas" (psychological and sociological) where they are cultic? Hello? Does this come from an expert on JWs?
The average JW won't even read this, because s/he is too brainwashed to do this. The expert who wrote it should know that taking initiative to implement reforms in such a high-control cultic group as Jehovah's witnesses qualifies for disfellowhiping and social exclusion, even if the Jw in question overcomes the psychological manipulation and tries to follow the advice given in this paragraph.
To sum it up, JWs are a high-control group, oftentimes emotionally and sometimes physically harmful. They discourage participation in many important areas of social life too. If you don't want to call it a 'cult' because you don't recognize the orthodox truth criterion - you're free to do it, but at this stage we're only arguing over the emotional bias of the word.
Cheers,
Pole
Today's Russian Newspapers
New York Times, United States - 24 minutes ago
... JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARRESTED IN UZBEKISTAN: Uzbek police arrested more than 500 Jehovah's Witnesses in their apartments, the newspaper reported, on charges of ...
COMPILED by RACHEL THORNER
Published: April 19, 2006
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARRESTED IN UZBEKISTAN: Uzbek police arrested more than 500 Jehovah's Witnesses in their apartments, the newspaper reported, on charges of "illegal religious gatherings" over the Easter holiday. Most detainees were beaten, some so severely that they were hospitalized.
UZBEKISTAN: Raids, detentions and rape threats on Jehovah's ...
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey - 4 hours ago
As in 2005, Uzbekistan's Jehovah's Witnesses again faced raids, mass detentions and rape threats on their most holy day this year – the commemoration of the ...
By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service Wednesday , 19 April 2006
Uzbekistan not harassing registered religious organizations ...
Interfax-Religion, Russia - 21 minutes ago
... Authorities are not persecuting Jehovah Witnesses, who have two communities in Uzbekistan, one in Fergana and the other in Chirchik. ...
20 April 2006, 16:08
Tashkent, April 20, Interfax - All religious organizations in Uzbekistan must abide by national laws, says a Thursday statement by the Governmental Committee for Religious Affairs received by Interfax.
"Everyone is equal before the law in Uzbekistan, regardless of nationality and religion, so anyone who breaks the law, which is in line with international legal standards and requirements, must be punished," the statement runs.
"Claims that Uzbek law enforcement agencies are allegedly always ready for special operations against religious minorities are absurd," the statement runs.
Christian, Jewish and other religious organizations have not complained of registration problems, the committee said.
Authorities are not persecuting Jehovah Witnesses, who have two communities in Uzbekistan, one in Fergana and the other in Chirchik.
More than 2,000 religious organizations and 16 religions are registered in Uzbekistan as of now, the committee said.
http://www.topix.net/who/jehovahs-witnesses/2007/07/ukrainian-on-jehovahs-witnesses posted at topix you can comment here no registration or moderation join in please Ukrainian security service report more Satanists and other cults
Interfax-Religion, Russia - 2 hours ago
According to the Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop Anthony of Borispol, the most dangerous cults are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the scientology, Hare Krishna, ... 23 July 2007, 11:49
I like the easy and natural way that bishop put the JWs in the category of dangerous cults which i sprecisely what they are despite their efforts to appear as a totally decent and not off the tangent group.
