Posts by willy

it should be applied to ALL religions around.
it is used to
"determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence."

then why not applie it? it may be helpfull some to see and think about the levels of control the organization once held over them . i had hoped it might be of use to someone.

3

Cult Danger Evaluation of the WTB&TS

by willy_think in

jw
friends

(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high).

willy_think

Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (version 2.0),
Isaac Bonewits

Introduction
Events in the last few decades have clearly indicated just how dangerous some religious and secular groups (usually called "cults" by those opposed to them) can be to their own members as well as to anyone else whom they can influence.

"Brainwashing," beatings, child abuse, rapes, murders, mass suicides, military drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil governments, international terrorism, and other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of many groups, and in far too many cases those accusations have been correct. None of this has been very surprising to historians of religion or to other scholars of what are usually labled "new" religions (no matter how old they may be in their cultures of origin).

Minority groups, especially religious ones, are often accused of crimes by members of the current majority. In many ways, for example, the "Mormons" were the "Moonies" of the 19th century -- at least in terms of being an unusual minority belief system that many found "shocking" at the time -- and the members of the Unification Church could be just as "respectable" a hundred years from now as the Latter Day Saints are today.

Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical caveats that could be issued, ordinary people faced with friends or loved ones joining an "unusual" group, or perhaps contemplating joining it themselves, need a relatively simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group is liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or judging it solely on theological or ideological grounds (the usual method used by anti-cult groups).

In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call the "Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame," or the "ABCDEF," a copy of which was included in that year's revised edition of my book, Real Magic (Samuel Weiser Pub., 1989). I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be effectively used to separate harmless groups from the merely unusual-to-the-observer ones. Feedback from those attempting to use the system has always been appreciated. Indirect feedback, in terms of the number of places on and off the Net this ABCDEF has shown up, has been mostly favorable. For example, it was chosen by and is now displayed on the website of the Institute for Social Inventions, who paraphrased it for their "Best Ideas -- A compendium of social innovations" listing.

The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence. It cannot speak to the spiritual "dangers," if any, that might be involved, for the simple reason that one person's path to enlightenment or "salvation" is often viewed by another as a path to ignorance or "damnation."

As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given group (the further to the right of the scale), the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using it, at least of the "is this group more dangerous than that one?" sort. This is if all numerical assignments are based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior by the groups and their top levels of leadership (as distinct from official pronouncements). This means that you need to pay attention to what the secondary and tertiary leaders are saying and doing, as much (or more so) than the central leadership -- after all, "plausible deniability" is not a recent historical invention.

This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement agents, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observers use the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes. People who cannot, on the other hand, view competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to anyone, will find the ABCDEF annoyingly useless for promoting their theocratic agendas. Worse, these members of the Religious Reich will find that their own organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far more "cult-like" than the minority belief systems they so bitterly oppose.

It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF is founded upon both modern psychological theories about mental health and personal growth, and my many years of participant observation and historical research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, could (I suppose) count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, both historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclinations to do so.

The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.0)

Factors:

INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of internal political power exercised byleader(s) over members.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s).

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
DOGMA: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or "fundamentalism."

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
RECRUITING: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
WEALTH: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members' donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
POLITICAL POWER: Amount of external political influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members' secular votes.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members by leader(s); amount of control exercised over sexuality of members; advancement dependent upon sexual favors or specific lifestyle.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
CENSORSHIP: Amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
VIOLENCE: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
PARANOIA: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
SURRENDER OF WILL: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

.....__________________________________________________________________________________
(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)
HYPOCRISY: amount of approval for other actions (not included above) which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate group's declared principles for political, psychological, economic, or other gain.

.....__________________________________________________________________________________(low)1........2........3........4........5........6........7........8........9.......10(high)

23

The Last Days in the 14th Century

by JanH in

jw
friends

the last days in the 14th century .

all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

willy_think

nice post Janh,

wow not one reply post attacking you personally. lol

--------
on another topic you posted the example of looking for horses when you hear the sound of hoof beats unless ofcourse you were in Africa where you would look for zebras. This appears to say look to the most obvious cause first. Why then in the big bamg theory do you abandon the search for cause? It seems cause and effect is maintained back to that point in the past where it is then abandoned. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.

5

President Bush Jr. and the # 13

by Treborr Jones in

jw
friends

coincidence.

not a chance.

try http://hardtruth.topcities.com/george_bushjr_13.htm

willy_think

OH MY GOOD GOD
did i throw up
yes i did

http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/ritual_abuse

the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.

41

Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

to whom it may concern,.

the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

willy_think

dunsscot

You may be correct, but I think you're only telling part of the story. JWs do not have a death wish for their children. They do everything in their power to give their children, happy and content lives. Furthermore, the JW life by its very nature is life-promoting. Lastly, I find it ironic that those who worry so much about the POTENTIAL death of a child who refuses blood transfusions do not care enough about the spiritual welfare of their children to teach them spiritual and ethtical guidelines. Some parents even smoke in front of their children or abuse alcohol. They also fail to teach them biblical truth or transcendent values as a whole. Are they any better than Witnesses who MAY permit their children to die if suitable alternatives to blood cannot be found?

They do everything in their power to give their children, happy and content lives.

what are you new?

do not care enough about the spiritual welfare of their children

and what is spiritual welafare without a spirit?
you must be new JWs have no sole

Some parents even smoke in front of their children or abuse alcohol. They also fail to teach them biblical truth or transcendent values as a whole. Are they any better than Witnesses who MAY permit their children to die if suitable alternatives to blood cannot be found?

you say "may permit" that is a LIE!!
what you are saying is "WILL permit"

yes thay are!!!!!! these kids can grow up and learn

the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.

27

Why? I have to ask...

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

why is it that when someone knocked on your door and said, "hey, we have the 'truth', and some of us are 'anointed'" and yet, could not prove that truth... nor even explain that anointing... you believed?.

yet, when someone who makes that claim has absolutely no problem explaining it to you and telling you of it... blow by blow... you do not believe?.

willy_think

hi AGuest,

Why is it that when someone knocked on your door and said, "Hey, we have the 'truth', and some of us are 'anointed'" and yet, could not PROVE that truth... nor even EXPLAIN that anointing... you believed?

thay don't do that. at the door thay only get a few drunks who hit bottom and get the WT, insted of AA.

for most JWs it is the run of the mill cult indoctrination.

the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.

10

What is the societies motivation?

by trendspeak in

jw
friends

i hear and read and form my thoughts about the insanity that was my life and those of others who experienced being a jw.

i am still stumped.

as much as i disagree with jw, have strong opinions about it, and feel it is very unhealthy, what is "their" motivation?

willy_think

money! But what about the JW's? what is their payoff

what is better money? everlasting life free of pain free of all need, pleasure, happynes every thing money could buy and more.

ALL the "payoffs" the WTB&TS offers ARE the promises of materialistic gain.

IT IS ALL MATERIALISTIC FROM START TO FINISH
personal gane or loss

the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.

25

WTBS CORP/ CONTROLLED BY NON JWS!!??

by JUSTAMOM in

jw
friends

just pondering over a few things i have been reading.. 1.annual corporate meeting oct 6, 2001. with all the weird changes in the last year...red light alert!.

2. since it was the 337 voting members who had the biggest say so as to the changes last year in removing the gb...... (and they are non jws)....what else will they or have they done?.

the only reason they don't send the gb home, and it's not because they care about their elderly, is the fact without them as puppets up there, most jws might wake up and smell the kool-aid!.

willy_think

Since it was the 337 voting members who had the BIGGEST say so as to the changes last year in removing the GB.....

(And they are NON JWS)....what else will they or have they done?

this is good and needs to be seen. do you have any info. on the members like names and states or any thing at all?

willy_think

Posts by willy_think