?s for larc

by CPiolo 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  CPiolo

  Larc,

  I am curious and was wondering if youd expand on some things youve said.

  You have stated that you dont believe the WT organization is a cult:

  (. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=30908&site=3)

  As the thread demonstrates, cult is a fuzzy term. Unless one clearly defines what they mean by cult, and comes to agreement regarding the definition, it is difficult to have a valid discussion. You dismissed the definitions of Steven Hassan and Margaret Singer because you felt they had an axe to grind. Hassan is obviously a former member of a questionable group, but why did you say this about Dr. Singer?

  I was also wondering whether you could/would outline the destructive and harmful behaviors and practices of the WT organization and the possible negative emotional/psychological and behavioral consequences that these could affect in its members. Maybe you could also let us know where you would place the group in reference to other well-known destructive and non-destructive groups, i.e. Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Nazis, Catholics, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, etc.

  I ask Larc this because he is a highly-qualified professional.

  (. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=29744&site=3)

  Some might argue that he too has and axe to grind. However, I dont feel so because of his reluctance to quickly categorize the WT Society.

  Thanks,

  CPiolo
• 

  Amazing

  Excellent CPiolo: I think your questions to Larc are great, and I will be looking for ward to what he has to say.
• 

  CPiolo

  Amazing:

  I hope you are good and that your recovery is progressing well.

  CPiolo
• 

  larc

  CPiolo, I am influenced by the standard descriptions provided my sociologists. I think, as behavioral scientists, they try to make distinctions that are both objective and useful. They place religions on a continuum from Denomination, Sect, and Cult. While some religions fit clearly in each category, there are some that my be between these three distinctions. Let me give a very brief, off the top of my head definition of each distinction. A denomination is a religion that is fully integrated into society and accepts the majority of its values and norms. Examples, to me, would be the Catholic Church and the large Protestant Churches, such as the Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, and the Prespaterians. Sects, are usually smaller and more quirky. They are in agreement with much of society, take some exception to mainstreem society, and consider themselves somewhat separate from the world. Cults demonstrate an extreme separtism, and view the rest of the world as extremely evil. When they choose to physicaly separate themselves, they truely are a cult. The Branch Davidians and Jim Jones are examples. Sociologists assert that many religions begin as cults (Christianity is an example of a Jewish cult, at its outset) As religions practice a moral life, they tend to become more materially successful. This causes a dilema because they usually start with and anti-materialistic ideation. As they prosper, then tend to absorb more of the larger societies values, and even accept prosperity as a sign of God's blessing. Through this process, they migrate from cult to sect to denomination. There are exceptions. Jim Jone's group started as a sect and migrated to a cult rather than moving towards a denomination. Based on these sociological definitions, I think that the JWs are a sect, a high control religion, with some cult-like characteristics. I do not see them as a full blown cult. If they were a cult, they would not have tryed to modify and soften their blood policy. A true cult would never, ever soften a policy, and would be happy to make even more rules to give their believers a reason to die. Would a cult allow college or altnernates to military service - never. Would they reduce pioneer hours - no, they would increase them. We are dealing with a large corporate high control sect, in my opinion.
• 

  Amazing

  Larc: I appreciate your response very much. Maybe we could have some email discussion on this topic, or maybe just post it here. But, I believe the JWs are a cult, but I use a scale or range of how serious and danderous a specific cult may be. I generally agree with your comments, with some small exceptions. Thanks again.
• 

  larc

  Amazing and CPiolo, These are not easy concepts to quantify, and there is always a chance for bias to enter into our conclusion. I could be biased myself in my attempt to be unbiased. My last comments in my previous post about some of the changes in Witness teaching, indicate to me that they are moving in the direction of sect. A cult would never make the modifications they have made. Amazing regarding your statement about the harm that the religion has caused: I don't know if that can be used as a criteria. It seems to me that any religion can cause harm if it is in the right place at the right time. For example, the Catholics, clearly a denomination, participated in the Crusades and the Inquisition. Today, they have caused harm by harboring pedophile priests, so they share that with a much smaller religion, the JWs. Among the sects, the Baptists and similiar religions have had their financial scandles, where ministers like Jim and Tammie Fay Baker have caused significant financial harm to their followers. I guess what I am saying is that any organization whether it is a religion, a business, or a branch of government can go bad. Yes, badness can be a criteria in religion, and clearly the extreme cults have done extreme harm. I see harm in the JW religion, but again, I see it as a matter of degree, and I don't see tha harm as extreme as it is in the cults. Amazing, I think your experience as an elder allowed you to see the harm in more detail and frequencey than the rest of us. Even so, I think you would see even greater problems if you were in a position of responsiblity in one of the true cults.
• 

  DanTheMan

  It's all a matter of semantics. Aren't I a genius for saying that?

  I read quite a bit of "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Recovery from Cults and Abusive Relationships". While much of what I read in the book was applicable to my WT experience, some of the situations described in the book helped me realize that there are far worse perpetrators of spiritual abuse than the WT. But the WT still sucks completely.

  I emailed you larc, did you get it?
• 

  refiners fire

  well if you boys dont mind me commenting...

  Ive always thought of The Witnesses as a sect rather than a cult, as Larc stated, same reasons.

  If you look at it from the point of view of Liftons criteria Id say the witnesses at times have practised 7 of them pretty severely but im not too certain on the "Planned Sponteneity". Ive formed my own interpretation of what 'planned Sponteneity" is, and based on my assessment they are not too big on that.

  Cults and sects to a degree fluctuate in cultic practise.But Ive never see anything that looked like a cult that DIDNT practise Liftons Identifiers. To me, The organization was much more latenty controlling of information and of external influence in the 70s than it is now. All in all the degrees of practise of cult behaviour are fluid, change from time to time, and the experts by no means agree upon the cult criteria.