Memo to TWI/Splinters: How NOT to be a cult

[John M Knapp LMSW]

Give me a moment. I mean to give this article a positive agenda. But it may take a second to get there.

I could complain about TWI, the splinters, or my own group, Transcendental Meditation. But I'd like to give the group leaders a few tips on how not to be a cult.

Perhaps cults and leaders could incorporate a few of them.

This is what I observe. When critics label a group cultic, there's a knee-jerk reaction. The group enters an escalating spiral of defensiveness.

First, they claim they are not a cult. They give dozens of reasons why they're just like other religions or groups. They attempt to destroy their critics. They claim critics are "disgruntled," criminal, bankrupt, unbalanced -- downright crazy.

When these tactics don't work, cults ratchet up repressive isolation of their members and forbid them to read critics.

Critics rightly point out these defensive maneuvers make the groups even more cultic than before. Which sets off another round of defensiveness.

Once in a great while, modern cults claim they have reformed. Scientology and ISKCON come to mind.

I remember opening my apartment door one sunny, Sonoma summer day in 1996 to Gene Ingram's smiling face . Gene's a private investigator best-known for allegedly intimidating critics of his main client, Scientology. He heard I left a startup cult activist foundation. So he thought I might be sympathetic to Scientology's side of the story.

"Scientology used to have some problems. But it's over. We threw the bad guys out. The good guys won."

Gene left me his business card and invited me to Los Angeles for a private tour of Scientology's facilities there -- and a private audience with some church bigwigs.

Somehow, I never got around to that trip.

Gene sadly misjudged my state of mind. Despite his assurances, cultic abuse complaints continue to dog Scientology some 12 years later. Maybe the mainstream media didn't get the memo.

Hare Krishnas reform? Same tune, different day with ISKCON's Hare Krishnas .

Okay. So on to my positive agenda.

Not every organization that critics label a cult started out to abuse its members. But without forethought, any organization can become cultic. Look at the problems the Catholic Church faces.

So here are a few tips for cult leaders. Maybe, just maybe, they can dodge the cult label.

Be Transparent

• discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly
  
• publicize open complaint procedures
  
• report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & public media
  
• allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," especially those that might affect potential members' choice to join
  
• fully disclose the group's political & legislative involvement
  
• fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, with third-party audits
  
• create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for retreats & "courses"
  
• dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public
  

Be Accountable

• publish -- and adhere to -- a set of ethics
  
• publish -- and adhere to -- all fees & donation policies
  
• oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards
  
• if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full responsibility
  

Advocate Freedom

• allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices
  
• Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices
  
• create an elective or accountable structure of representation (as in most churches)
  
• promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals for contrary opinions
  
• promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars
  
• allow access to files/records held on members & public individuals
  
• advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning or other repercussions
  
• avoid use of shame or guilt to control members
  

Provide Member Protections

• institute safeguards against members devoting damaging amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group
  

Value Respect for Non-Members

• foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & non-members
  
• foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than the belief the ends justify the means
  
• foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they are members or not
  
• foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less fortunate
  
• encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members
  

Provide Informed Consent

• fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering or medical techniques
  
• undertake real efforts to address & heal side-effects
  
• accept financial responsibility for members suffering side-effects
  

Imagine a cult that acted with this kind of integrity.

That's a spiritual organization I could be proud of.

I'm sure readers will think of more bottom-line policies for successful non-cults. Please feel free to suggest them in comments below or by emailing me directly at jmknapp53@gmail.com.

[oldiesman]

A quick question: do you consider religious groups who do not adhere to all of the above a cult?

[John M Knapp LMSW]

A quick question: do you consider religious groups who do not adhere to all of the above a cult?

Hi, oldiesman,

Thanks for a great question!

No, I use the term "cult" in the sense of a dangerous or abusive group (not a full definition by any means).

A group could not have these things and place and not be dangerous or abusive. But I think orgs that don't have similar policies and practices in place are at risk for becoming cultic.

Transparency and accountability are the heart of what I am suggesting. In secrecy, abuse thrives.

Even groups that start with the best of intentions can rapidly become abusive in various ways if there is no oversight.

J.

[JeffSjo]

Thank you John,

I plan on referring back to your list as the need arises. I think it may well help me evaluate groups in the future.

As far as my former splinter group goes, I fear that it has gone far, far past simply the simple correction of implementing the good guidelines on your list. Sometimes I wonder what the latest false prediction of the Lord's return is that the leader is using to whip the troops into shape. Since this man was even referred to as "The Word in the Flesh" over four plus years ago and they don't seem to show any signs of anything except getting pulled farther and farther over the edge from sanity, I fear that it will end badly.

A leader like this IMO will not ever likely fess up to all his bogus doctrines and eat the appropriate amount of crow to help his own people recover.

Thank you for the list though, once again.

JEFF

[Ham]

Besides accountability, I think it would go a long way if some of the "leaders" developed an honest, real, genuine human sense of humor..

maybe they could take a few insults, without thinking God's gonna kick some rear..

I think they take themselves far, far too seriously.

Maybe I'm asking for a little too much..

[ljn698]

Since this man was even referred to as "The Word in the Flesh" ...

wowee you mean Jesus Himself ran the thing?

but seriously though

all the stuff on the list would be nice for any organization or fellowship (if you'll pardon the expression)

throw in something about hanging on to your (ahem) "green stuff" ***

rather than advising the faithful to "dig deep" all the time

***as we collect our love offering, please be aware of the fact that Pastor Creditfo' A. Dollar is allergic to the sound of silver! <--- just a joke!

ooooooooooooh ohhhhhhhhhhh

I forgot

How about NOT doing things that need to be covered up in the foist place?

aha? aha?

[cheranne]

or how not to be a thorn in the flesh? Splinter groups get the log out of your eye and see clear!!!!

That is my two cents.

[GarthP2000]

as we collect our love offering, please be aware of the fact that Pastor Creditfo' A. Dollar is allergic to the sound of silver!

Well Rev. Dollar, you'll be pleased to know that pennies aren't made of silver.

[John M Knapp LMSW]

Thank you John,

I plan on referring back to your list as the need arises. I think it may well help me evaluate groups in the future.

As far as my former splinter group goes, I fear that it has gone far, far past simply the simple correction of implementing the good guidelines on your list. Sometimes I wonder what the latest false prediction of the Lord's return is that the leader is using to whip the troops into shape. Since this man was even referred to as "The Word in the Flesh" over four plus years ago and they don't seem to show any signs of anything except getting pulled farther and farther over the edge from sanity, I fear that it will end badly.

A leader like this IMO will not ever likely fess up to all his bogus doctrines and eat the appropriate amount of crow to help his own people recover.

Thank you for the list though, once again.

JEFF

Hi, Jeff,

Thanks for your note. You may be right that the leader will not change. If a list like this were to guide wide acceptance in the culture at large, people might use it as you suggest: to judge groups they think of getting involved in.

Groups like those trying to reform the Catholic Church have similar ethics principles. There is the possibility that a list like this could be common.

J.

[Mike]

John,

Let's apply your suggestions to one Jesus Christ, as recorded in the 4 Gospels.

How do you think he'd do?

Pass or fail?

Cult leader or divinely inspired leader?

Human Cult or Intervention by God?

And while we're at it, how would Paul do with his organization as documented in Acts and the Epistles?

[waysider]

John,

Let's apply your suggestions to one Jesus Christ, as recorded in the 4 Gospels.

How do you think he'd do?

Pass or fail?

Cult leader or divinely inspired leader?

Human Cult or Intervention by God?

And while we're at it, how would Paul do with his organization as documented in Acts and the Epistles?

Claiming to have a Divine connection and actually having one are really not the same thing.

[Mike]

Claiming to have a Divine connection and actually having one are really not the same thing.

That's obvious.

What I mean is "What happens when the Real Deal comes along?"

John's suggestions will reject an actual Divine connection along with the garbage.

His suggestions deny the possibility of God intervening in the affairs of men.

[waysider]

If "the real deal" came along, I personally doubt that God would encourage them to practice isolationism, hide scandalous behavior, appropriate massive funds for personal gratification, etc., etc., etc.

[Mike]

If "the real deal" came along, I personally doubt that God would encourage them to practice isolationism, hide scandalous behavior, appropriate massive funds for personal gratification, etc., etc., etc.

Again, you are addressing the obvious.

I had THIS in mind when reading John's suggestions: "Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices."

[waysider]

I think it is fairly obvious that John did not intend this to be a black or white, all or nothing set of guidelines. Comparing TWI to this list, we can clearly see that many of the hallmarks that identify a cult were there. Note, also, that a group does not have to have theological underpinnings to practice cult defining behavior. There is a well known motorcycle club that many would consider to be a cult.

Wierwille had no special Divine connection. He proved this himself by virtue of his teaching that a true prophet can never be wrong about prophetic matters. He referenced OT scripture to illustrate this. Yet, he was very, very wrong on countless points, not only regarding scripture, but also regarding Godly behavior.

edit: Although VPW never declared himself a "prophet", he did present the indentifying criteria as being "one who speaks from or for God--- one who foretells or forth tells." This is presented in the PFAL class. He certainly represented himself to be "one who forth tells".

Edited October 10, 2008 by waysider

[Mike]

I think there's a hidden agenda in Cult Awareness Schemes, and that is there is no absolute truth to be had, and no one can ever claim to have any kind of true authority.

In this respect Cult Awareness Schemes become an cult in themselves, with the authoritative take on the rarity of truth. This contradiction is typically shoved under the rug just like other cults do.

If a typical Cult Awareness Scheme were to be applied to Jesus or Paul or Moses or David, all four would be regarded as evil cult leaders to be avoided.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Mike

[waysider]

I think there's a hidden agenda in Cult Awareness Schemes, and that is there is no absolute truth to be had, and no one can ever claim to have any kind of true authority.

In this respect Cult Awareness Schemes become an cult in themselves, with the authoritative take on the rarity of truth. This contradiction is typically shoved under the rug just like other cults do.

If a typical Cult Awareness Scheme were to be applied to Jesus or Paul or Moses or David, all four would be regarded as evil cult leaders to be avoided.

Unless you have invented some sort of time travel machine and plan to travel back to Biblical times, it seems rather pointless to consider what may or may not have qualified as a cult 1,000's of years ago. What we are looking at is the here and now, our lifetimes. So the question being addressed is "what, in our lifetime, would be considered defining criteria for a cult?"

Truth is ever changing and constantly being redefined. It is not an "absolute" as we were led to believe in TWI.

[Mike]

Unless you have invented some sort of time travel machine and plan to travel back to Biblical times, it seems rather pointless to consider what may or may not have qualified as a cult 1,000's of years ago. What we are looking at is the here and now, our lifetimes. So the question being addressed is "what, in our lifetime, would be considered defining criteria for a cult?"

People form opinions based on newspaper clippings all the time. We DO have a time machine of sorts, or a set of documents far better than newspaper clippings: the scriptures. If John's suggestions were applied to the situations surrounding Jesus, Paul, Moses, and David based on the surviving scriptures, those men of God would be rejected. THE POINT IS: John's suggestions are too harsh to be of value. They throw out babies with bath water.

Truth is ever changing and constantly being redefined. It is not an "absolute" as we were led to believe in TWI.

That sounds to me like a mighty flimsy "truth" you are describing. One I'd rather not bother with.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Mike

[WordWolf]

I think there's a hidden agenda in Cult Awareness Schemes, and that is there is no absolute truth to be had, and no one can ever claim to have any kind of true authority.

[i think there's a hidden agenda in Mike's posts-which is to obfuscate the issues and try to invalidate them-

whether it be through loaded language like "schemes", or through comparing unlike things and saying

a standard fails when it can't be used for things it was never designed for.

(Mathematical proofs would "fail" to give a reasonable standard for keeping food fresh, and it would be

similarly unfair to apply one to the other.}

The idea that "no one can ever claim to have any kind of true authority" is introduced here by Mike-

who, conveniently, never defines nor explains what he means by "true authority" so he can later claim his

issue were never addressed.

We all agree there is TRUTH and AUTHORITY. What "ABSOLUTE" truth is, and "TRUE" authority is, are

matters of DOCTRINE and deserve their own threads in Doctrinal.

"What is truth?"- Pontius Pilate.]

In this respect Cult Awareness Schemes become an cult in themselves, with the authoritative take on the rarity of truth. This contradiction is typically shoved under the rug just like other cults do.

[This claim might carry a lot more weight if it wasn't coming from someone with his OWN

"authoritative take" on truth-rare or otherwise. And shoving contradictions under the rug is just one of his most

common tactics.

(I wouldn't have brought that up-but YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WAS MAKING THE COMPARISON.

Between yourself and Juedes, I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose that I did not think the

comparison was well-taken.)]

If a typical Cult Awareness Scheme were to be applied to Jesus or Paul or Moses or David, all four would be regarded as evil cult leaders to be avoided.

[You're asserting this without making a case for it. Bald claims should be supported if you expect anyone

to take them seriously. We had more than our fill of bald, unsupported claims in twi-we don't need any more

from you or anyone else.]

[waysider]

Mike

We are not trying to apply these definitions to ancient times.

This is a contemporary subject, not a study of generations past.

It is pointless to even bring those examples into the discussion.

As for "Truth", even "The Word" as we know it is constantly being redefined as new discoveries are being made and new interpretations come to light. Even in TWI, there was an on-going process to refine and redefine the meaning of "The Word".

[Mike]

The point I aim to make is a valid one.

My point is that many modern people think absolute truth was only for the ancient days of robes and sandals. If they think that way they should be up front and say so, that they think the scriptures are a lot of bunk, and that only modern scripture rejectors have any real truth.

I think absolute truth is available today. This is not popular. This Cult Awareness is a back door way of rejecting the idea that God is real and can intervene with His revelation.

I feel this should be brought out to the forefront, that many modern people only want to tolerate flimsy "relative truths." This is contradictory absolutism, that there are absolutely no absolutes.

I feel this needs to be pointed out. I did. Thank you.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Mike

[socks]

Mike (and all) I think waysider hits a point that really sets the table for this discussion -

We are not trying to apply these definitions to ancient times.

This is a contemporary subject, not a study of generations past.

Christianity is defined by how it views Jesus in the past - perfect, sinless, always did the will of God, etc. etc. These are the things we read about or have been taught, and it's upon that knowledge of who He was that Christianity bases it's entire platform for understanding who He now is.

Looking back at the gospels from here, we see presented a person who always did the right thing, right time, etc. He was "the son of God".

At that time that wasn't known in it's entirety because He was living it with the people who followed Him and would believe in Him as someone unique. The qualities that made Jesus who He was (as those who make Him who He is) were becoming known.

In that light I think it's clear to say that the qualities of His life, actions, integrity, etc. etc. appear to have made such a clear and powerful impact that in just a few short years He accrued a reputation that ascribed the highest standards of moral, ethical and religious behavior possible and that in fact set a new and higher standard for those following. Still, there were those who questioned his actions while He was alive, and examined what He did and why closely. Not all agreed. Those who lived at that time had to see and come to know Him, to evaluate Him.

Point - actions speak louder than words.

[WordWolf]

John,

Let's apply your suggestions to one Jesus Christ, as recorded in the 4 Gospels.

How do you think he'd do?

Pass or fail?

Cult leader or divinely inspired leader?

Human Cult or Intervention by God?

And while we're at it, how would Paul do with his organization as documented in Acts and the Epistles?

It's patently ridiculous to take standards that include legal status, and to try to apply them to

situations centuries before, when the legal standards were markedly different.

For example, travelers in 2008 must carry valid passports if they travel between countries in order to

be expected to be allowed to enter that country.

In Jesus' time, and in Paul's time, travelers did not carry valid passports.

Was that wrong of them? Did they break the law by being expected to travel?

Paul travelled a LOT and never had a passport stamped.

No-and most people with any sense can see that there were NO SUCH THING as valid passports

back then, so expecting them to carry them of be "wrong" is patently silly.

However, it's no less silly than saying "Paul didn't have an independent auditor examine the

ledgers annually, so he was a lawbreaker"- just because that's honest business practice NOW

although it wasn't in effect THEN.

Did they break the laws of the land?

NO.

Jesus paid his taxes. Paul was in trouble for angering RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES, not any

LEGAL AUTHORITY. Peter gave the standard:

I Peter 2:13-14.

"13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."

This was written during a time of CORRUPT leaders like NERO.

===========

So, John's standards of legal expectations are RIDICULOUS to use, line by line, for Jesus or Paul.

"Files and records held on members?"

John would be silly to have brought it up.

However, John never intended it to be used on people in other countries 2000 years ago.

The silliness was introduced when someone ELSE brought it up, and pretended there was merit in doing so.

Let's try to do something intelligent with this silly interruption, however.

This is a MODERN standard.

The claim was SUPPOSED to be that genuine movements of God would fail this standard.

Therefore, an intelligent question would be:

Would a MODERN movement from God PASS John's posted standard,

or would a MODERN movement from God FAIL John's posted standard?

Let's take a look.

I take it as a given that any GENUINE movement FROM GOD ALMIGHTY would not contradict the standards

God has previously given. That is, any movement FROM GOD ALMIGHTY would, perforce, conform to the

letter and intent of Holy Scripture. (I also take it as a given that the Bible is that selfsame "Holy Scripture".

Discussions that disagree on this will be unable to get far, as there would then be no STANDARD to compare,

so everything would be subjective and opinion, which vary widely.)

What's some of the standards God would have in effect?

1) The laws of the land would be followed.

2) The people would be loved like Jesus loved his disciples.

(John 13:34-35, John 15:12, 15, Romans 12:10, Galatians 5:13, Ephesians 4:12, I Thessalonians 4:9...)

=========================

So, what would John's "TIPS" (gee-he never said they were a "standard"-that was another poster)

say about a MODERN movement of God?

Be Transparent

* discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly

* publicize open complaint procedures

* report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & public media

* allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," especially those that might affect potential members' choice to join

* fully disclose the group's political & legislative involvement

* fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, with third-party audits

* create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for retreats & "courses"

* dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public

Would a MODERN movement of God do this?

They WOULD have specific standards for policies and procedures that will be applied, and how they will be

applied. They would NOT hide "unpleasant" news-scandals or internal problems- from the members

or the public. (This does not require them to put articles on them on the national news-but the members

would all have free access to the basics, and outsiders could easily report on them if they wished.)

Finances would be OPEN and MONITORED. Many modern churches have this already.

Expenses people would have to pay would be kept reasonable-with the goal that more people can participate

in things when they are cheaper, which benefits more people. God prefers to benefit more people rather than

less people (all other things being equal- benefitting 200 loyal Christians is better than benefitting 10 loyal

Christians, but benefitting 200 loyal Christians is better than benefitting 300 people who glory in sins and

the propagation of sin.)

So, the "Be Transparent" Tips would, indeed, apply and God's movements would pass.

Be Accountable

* publish -- and adhere to -- a set of ethics

* publish -- and adhere to -- all fees & donation policies

* oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards

* if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full responsibility

This is almost a corollary to the previous points. God's people will be fair and evenhanded,

having fair rules, accessible to all, which would be the one standard.

Corruption and problems would be dealt with swiftly, fairly, and openly, so the

laity could see what happened and how it was addressed.

In short, again, God's GENUINE movements would adhere to this.

Advocate Freedom

* allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices

* Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices

* create an elective or accountable structure of representation (as in most churches)

* promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals for contrary opinions

* promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars

* allow access to files/records held on members & public individuals

* advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning or other repercussions

* avoid use of shame or guilt to control members

ACCOUNTABILITY, FREE WILL, and FREEDOM OF IDEAS matter to God.

Nobody would be FORCED to say-or NOT say-specific things. If the people need to hear

about how to operate independently, THAT is what they will hear, not "how to conform

to the leader's whims."

What about ACCOUNTABILITY? Would there really be meetings on practices?

The Book of Acts shows meetings something like the contemporary versions.

A REAL movement of God has REAL leaders for God in charge- so there is little concern

that a POLICY MEETING would end with LESS effective policy. Rather, the strengths of

ALL of God's leaders would be brought into play, which strengthens the movement from

God. So, again, John's "tips" would indeed apply to a GENUINE movement from God

in the MODERN world.

Provide Member Protections

* institute safeguards against members devoting damaging amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group

Do I really need to address this one again? John's "tips", again, DO apply.

Value Respect for Non-Members

* foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & non-members

* foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than the belief the ends justify the means

* foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they are members or not

* foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less fortunate

* encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members

This can be summarized as "love your neighbor as yourself", if "neighbor" includes

people like "those who have nothing to do with you, who have no reason to presume a benefit

or a payback for helping them, who are then helped."

(Review Jesus' own example of the "Good Samaritan" if this is unclear to you.)

Plenty of modern churches, BTW, DO perform work for total strangers- homeless, hungry,

destitute- and expect nothing back in return.

(Ever find a total stranger, feed them, and then leave without taking any credit whatsoever

for having done so? I have-when working with a local church-and I could easily have chided

them for glaring errors in their doctrines. However, they understood "love your neighbor

as yourself" better than I ever saw in twi.)

Provide Informed Consent

* fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering or medical techniques

* undertake real efforts to address & heal side-effects

* accept financial responsibility for members suffering side-effects

REAL movements of God should be free of even needing to ADDRESS such considerations.

However, they would take responsibility for harm done by their group, in their name,

and act decisively to fix any problems thus inflicted.

It's almost ridiculous to have to say that's a simple application of

"love one another."

That's ALL the "TIPS" John gave.

How about that- item by item, GENUINE MODERN MOVEMENTS OF GOD would indeed have little

trouble following these "TIPS", and if they were graded with this as the standard, they'd get

very high marks-or, likely, perfect marks.

The idea that these "TIPS" would APPEAR to discredit GENUINE movements of God is an

interesting idea, but-as we have just seen- it's an idea that is easy to disprove.

(Edited to delete accidentally duplicated text.)

Edited October 10, 2008 by WordWolf

[JeffSjo]

So here are a few tips for cult leaders. Maybe, just maybe, they can dodge the cult label.

Be Transparent

• discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly
  
• publicize open complaint procedures
  
• report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & public media
  
• allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," especially those that might affect potential members' choice to join
  
• fully disclose the group's political & legislative involvement
  
• fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, with third-party audits
  
• create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for retreats & "courses"
  
• dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public
  

Be Accountable

• publish -- and adhere to -- a set of ethics
  
• publish -- and adhere to -- all fees & donation policies
  
• oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards
  
• if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full responsibility
  

Advocate Freedom

• allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices
  
• Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices
  
• create an elective or accountable structure of representation (as in most churches)
  
• promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals for contrary opinions
  
• promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars
  
• allow access to files/records held on members & public individuals
  
• advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning or other repercussions
  
• avoid use of shame or guilt to control members
  

Provide Member Protections

• institute safeguards against members devoting damaging amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group
  

Value Respect for Non-Members

• foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & non-members
  
• foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than the belief the ends justify the means
  
• foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they are members or not
  
• foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less fortunate
  
• encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members
  

Provide Informed Consent

• fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering or medical techniques
  
• undertake real efforts to address & heal side-effects
  
• accept financial responsibility for members suffering side-effects
  

Imagine a cult that acted with this kind of integrity.

That's a spiritual organization I could be proud of.

I'm sure readers will think of more bottom-line policies for successful non-cults. Please feel free to suggest them in comments below or by emailing me directly at jmknapp53@gmail.com.

THIS IS HOW I SEE THE APOSTLE PAUL COMPARED TO THIS LIST.

AS FAR AS TRANSPARENCY GOES:

He was very forthright in his handling of the scandal in Corinth, heck, we're still reading about it and considering it today. If TWI standards applied to Paul he would have hid behind decades of lies set up according to the wishes of stupid and mean men.

He didn't seem to have a governmental agenda to speak of, but his dealings in front of the very top governmental powers were once again so open and transparent that we still read about them today. Once again TWI does not line up with Paul's standard!!!

AS FAR AS BEING ACCOUNTABLE GOES:

How wasn't Paul accountable? He was accountable for his bad actions before his conversion. He remained accountable for everything after, often spelling out to church Elders their accountabilities to God and men. He was SO ACCOUNTABLE that he openly used his very personal life as an example of accountability so that we can still learn from it today. He remained accountable for his own actions and never let go of the desire to help the churches overcome their own challenges.

AS FAR AS ADVOCATING FREEDOM GOES:

Once again in Corinth he acknowledged that their were differences of opinion in the church and a possible purpose for them. But then did his best to help them grow up and stop being so divisive and contrary. TWI and unfortunatley my splinter group is a bad, bad example of running EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF THE BIBLICAL STANDARD and the opposite of the intent of this point. They crushed my diisent to their rabid group think, bad doctrines, false prophecies all while keeping up the official opinion of what a bad man I was.

AS FAR AS MEMBER PROTECTION GOES:

Paul did not desire gifts. He taught that his desire was for the ones that gave were to be blessed. I think that history makes it obvious that for Paul this was honest, and not just another smooth saying by a con-artist that was looking to bleed people dry. DUUUHHH!

In my splinter group they even bought a camp that they could not afford. Before they were forced to give it up the leader warned us by saying, "If I don't get to keep my camp, you won't like life very much!" Psycho bastard!!! And he said this to a group of people who had completely out run their own means of support and were PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEDGE OF BEING PART OF THIS SICKO'S FOLLOWING.

I think that simply put, the kind of sexual abuse that happened in TWI is so freakin obviously the king of things that the prophets openly brought to light and reproved that I cannot find it in my heart to even remotely respect any other viewpoint. Period.

AS FAR AS RESPECT FOR NON-MEMBERS GOES:

duuuhhh!

How many people does Paul put down besides the truly criminal? duuuhhh!

I prefer respect for non-members to the kind of high minded, condescending, puffed up, deluded mindset that TWI and my former splinter group bred.

duuuhhh!

P.S. Well said Wordwolf!

Edited October 10, 2008 by JeffSjo

[Tzaia]

I think absolute truth is available today.

So did a lot of us. It's that promise of absolute truth that provides the hook. It is also the reason why Jesus was rejected as the messiah by both the Jews and Islam. He failed on a number of what were considered essential qualities of a messiah.

What we don't know is how many turned away based on the notion that the kingdom did not arrive soon after the ascension as Jesus stated would happen. This was a very real belief during the time immediately following his crucifixion.

This is not popular.

It is very popular, just not here because most of us have bought into the notion at some point in time and found it fallacious.

I would go for a group that says "we probably don't have the whole truth, but we are going to work at finding it out and doing our best to live according to our proclaimed beliefs in an open and transparent manner."

This Cult Awareness is a back door way of rejecting the idea that God is real and can intervene with His revelation.

That's what you think, but it's only an opinion, not a fact.