Is it more accurate to call it a cult or to call it a high control group?

by Hillary 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Hillary
• 

  mrsjones5

  First explain the difference between the two. I'm leaning towards cult.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Either would be appropriate in most opinions.
• 

  Mickey mouse

  I think it would most accurately be described as something which will bugger up your head and your life.
• 

  Tooz

  fan=fanitic

  cult=culture

  Its a fanitic culture for sure.
• 

  Alwayshere

  I call it both.
• 

  jam

  A high control group now but heading to become A

  bonafide cult.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Academics would call it a New Religious Movement. Wikipedia has a decent article on the term. Cult is derlogatory in American culture. To avoid beignlabelled a JW apostate fanatic, I would use high control. The Roman Catholic Chuirch and others have engaged in the same behavior in the past. In common parlance, cult is an apt term. It fits on this fourm. I would never use cult with a general public. If I used it, they may not pay attention to me.

  If I know normal people well, I use the term "cult," because, hopefully, they know me and know I do not make rash judgments. If I use cult, it is most likely a cult.
• 

  Farkel

  It's a high control cult.

  Seriously, if you look at any of the commonly accepted criteria for what a defines a cult, your conclusion should be obvious.

  Farkel
• 

  Finkelstein

  I've posted this before but I think its once again relevant to the topic.

  Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

  9. The group/leader is always right.

  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

  Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

  2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

  3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

  4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

  5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

  6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

  7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

  8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

  9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

  10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.