The trouble with JW's is that they have had a hand picked definition provided for them to refer to (reasoning bk) by the 'leaders' that makes them feel exempt as soon as the word cult is used.
I dont use it...
oz
About Cults - defining based on an individual leader - a better description
by Mad Sweeney 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
sizemik
Some very good points have been made here . . . but things still aren't sitting well with me.
Firstly, in all the definitions of what constitutes a cult that I've looked at, it is only the single charismatic leader part of the definition that consistently "exempts" certain groups (eg JW's) . . . yet the definition, with this feature aside, clearly shows they are in fact a Cult (I think this is what Mad was getting at).
It has to be acknowledged that the general perception of a cult is weighted to the more extreme examples (Jones/Koresh) where a single charismatic leader is the focus of attention. And this gives rise to the preconception, whereby less high profile groups can effectively use their "wriggle room".
Personally, I feel the definition is quite clear and distinct in itself as to what defines a cult in spite of the preconceptions.
What gives me a sense of disquiet, is that by referring to a cult that lacks a single charismatic leader by another term such as "high control group" . . . as if they're something other than a cult . . . then we effectively let them off the hook by default. They no longer need their "wriggle room" to escape the definition . . . we've allowed them to escape . . . effectively agreeing "you are not a cult".
I know a committed JW will always reject the definition using some kind of specious reasoning . . . even if the definition fits perfectly. But it is those who are unaware of the tactics used and true nature of these other groups that need this awareness more than the winning of an argument with a JW.
I can only conclude that the definition of a cult SHOULD accommodate the multiple leaders feature more readily than it does, if only for the sake of accuracy. A more accurate definition in this way, would serve better the interests of the vulnerable and unwary.
Luvonyall - MS
-
Mad Sweeney
Sizemik is getting me. I understand the problems with the word and try not to use it. But since the word exists, this thread is about discussing what it means.
I get the impression, based on conversations online, and a lack of results while googling, that much research hasn't been done on long-lived cults that maintain their high control aspects. Most religions that start out extreme end up liberalizing just to survive or in the case of the cultiest of cults they die out with their founder, or shortly thereafter. There are only a small handful that both maintain growth AND maintain the high control aspects of the religion. The JWs, Mormons, Scientologists are the only ones I can think of and they ALL were established by a single individual and they ALL persisted beyond his death while maintaining high control aspects of their faith.
Because MOST religions liberalize with age or die out, I think it is often assumed that because they've got longevity, that they aren't high control any longer. Third and fourth-stage cults are hardly ever looked at because of this prejudice and because they are an established organization, not a one man show.