Shawn,
I realize I am wasting my breath, or rather key-strokes, but I just can't let your bold (and uninformed) assertion hang out there unchallenged.
You state that every "expert" on cults considers JWs a cult. This is simply untrue.
"Experts" can be broken down into three general camps (not cleanly of course but generally speaking.) These groups are: "Counter-cultists" "anti-cultists" and scientists/academics.
Counter-cult experts (often evangelical and other conservative Christian groups) generally are religiously motivated and almost invariably include a theological assessment and adhesion to specific doctrinal criteria for the groups they assess which they interpret along orthodox and traditional lines. Those groups which do not meet the criteria are automatically labeled a cult. Thus some christian faiths such as Mormons/LDS, Adventists/Seventh-Day Adventists and JWs are almost always labeled a cult this is true. However, this approach is inherently biased and denies religious plurality in addition to making such "experts" as legalistic and totalistic as the cult groups so identified. Experts along this vein, such as the esteemable late Walter Martin, feel that the scripture: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - means that there is only one acceptable path to God, their way.
Anti-cult experts (e.g. Steve Hassan and other similar counselors and therapists) focus more on the dynamics and social milieu of the group in making a determnation. I would point out to you that Hassan in his seminal work, Combating Cult Mind Control, never identifies Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult in the body of the text (as he does the Moonies and other groups) but only has a single reference in the appendix of the book.
It is painfully obvious that Hassan has never really engaged in any serious study of Jehovah's Witnesses and that his inclusion of Witnesses in his identification of cult groups is at best superficially ministrative and at worst unqualified reliance upon the few ex-members he has either personally counseled or from the groups of ex-members he has spoken to (at paid engagements).
Even the listing from his website provides this info as the reasons why his BITE model applies to JWs:
Behaviors:
Members cannot read anything critical about the group or engage the internet on non-approved sites. They cannot talk to ex-members, take blood transfusions, go to war, or celebrate holidays. Independent thought heavily discouraged. Must report others who don't comply. College discouraged.
Information:
Spying by the elders and even the rank-and-file is encouraged, if not required.
Thought:
Doubt is of the devil.
Emotional:
Guilt and fear are the number one tools.
Not only is the information out of date on certain points but any objective assesment clearly shows that the type of totalistic milieu control that Hassan correctly discusses and identifies in cult groups such as the Moonies, Heaven's Gate, etc is far from the actual environment and reality of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Just for a brief example, the identification that "members cannot read anything critical" which he points to above (on his website) is patently false in practice and reality. Any Jehovah's Witness may read critical information and many do so. The only constraints upon reading such material is a weak emotive imperative based upon doctrine, whereas in a real cultic environment there are often actual physical barriers and restraints involved - in addition to severe punishment including physical abuse, torture, etc, being used to reinforce such prohibitions. In contrast, the worst "punishment" that Witnesses might receive is expulsion from the group (completely diametrical to the aims of real cult groups which seek to retain members) and even this punishment is anecdoctal. The number of times when a Witness has actually been expelled for reading critical information are minuscule at most.
There are a number of reasons why anti-cult experts, while possibly helpful to ex-members in counseling, are not the best cult experts to cite as definitive sources including their lack of fieldwork, participant observation, scientific method, biased reliance upon ex-members' testimony and experience without balance, and of course a pecuniary interest to cast as wide a net as possible for potential clients and for personal prestige.
In contrast to the foregoing groups of experts, scientists, academics and scholars (psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, etc.) display a broader perspective. While there is, of course, much debate among these experts as to identifying which groups to be cults (or even to use that term), you will find, with a little investigation that there are many experts that do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a cult.
I have found that sociologists, especially, are a group of experts that have not identified JWs as a cult, but more often- correctly label them a sect of Adventism, if anything.
Unfortunately, because Sociologists and other such experts take a dispassionate scientific approach to the subject, they are often unfairly labeled as cult sympathizers or supporters.
But in fact, these scholars are among the best to look to for explanations and investigations about the cultic or non-cultic qualities of a group because they utilize scientific method and an array of accepted tools to obtain data and to arrive at their conclusions.
If you have never read any book which did not label JWs a cult, it is evidently because you have not read enough books. I would recommend two books to you:
Understanding New Religious Movements – John A. Saliba 1995 and
Misunderstanding Cults - edited by Benjamin Zablocki & Thomas Robbins 2001
This later work is an anthology of several essays which present perspectives from both "sides" of the issue and as a whole stands as a moderate and balanced approach.
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
PS: If you care to read my own explanation of why I believe JWs are not properly considered a cult you can visit this page:
http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.info/notacult.html
