What makes a cult a "cult"?

by XQsThaiPoes 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  When a word is said with a sneer, it takes on more meaning than the Oxford dictionary. I believe the WTBTS is, by orthodox and sociological definition, a "cult". But I don't use that word so often any more. Because when I use the word "cult", the image that comes to mind is the Branch Davidians, Jonestown, and koolaid. All a JW has to say is, "Look at my neat appearance and natty suit. We do not serve koolaid at the Kingdom Hall, and we do not have a stash of AK 47's in our basement. OF COURSE we are not a cult." But, but. HIGH CONTROL group. Just let them try and weasel out of that definition.

  Are governments and armies cultic/high control as well? Perhaps. I guess we have to ask ourselves to what degree. Armies by necessity are not democratic. To move large masses of men in to danger, reliably, leaders have to know that they will obey without question. Governments use propoganda to sway public opinion so that they can push forward their agenda. There is no question that there is emotional coersion that is going on.

  I ask myself, what are the consequences for going against the grain? For a soldier in the middle of war, court-martial. In milder seasons, he gets conscientious objector status and does stupidwork. In a democratic country? There is a lot of tolerance for differing beliefs, and dissenters do not have to chose between freedom and family. The US does not have a Berlin Wall. People are free to come and go and speak what they please within limits.

  I believe the WTBTS has erected a mental Berlin Wall. Followers are convinced that their side of the wall is the closest thing to genuine paradise. How many brave a peek over the wall? How many stay within once they get a good look at freedom? How many drag on for sake of family and friends? JWD veterans are brave folk for counting the cost and making the sacrifice. Bravo.
• 

  garybuss

  Margaret Singer wrote, among other things, that one reason the military is not fitting the profile of a cult is they are not deceptive in their recruiting or in their real purpose. I am aware of more than a few dishonest military recruiters, so I am not very much in agreement with her on all her points. I have re-read that portion of her book several times and still I do not buy all her points.
  
  XQ, you might want to whip a read on it sometime and comment on that section. I would be interested in your comments. Cults In Our Midst, by Margaret Singer.
  
  I wrote an article about my conflict with her position on the establishment and maintenance of the pseudo personality. It's at www.freeminds.org GaryB
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  MungoBaobab

  The only thing that makes a cult a cult is numbers.

  Minority denomination= Cult.

  Mainstream denomination= Religion.

  Rutherford was right, religion is a snare and a racket!
• 

  drwtsn32

  Mungo, I disagree...it's not just numbers but how the leaders control the members.

  I have posted a link to this site a few times:

  Cult Warning Signs

  I think it's a great way to help identify a cult!
• 

  Happy Guy :)

  The only thing that makes a cult a cult is numbers

  That may be your opinion but it is factually incorrect. If one is to boil it down to only one attribute which defines a cult (as only you have done) that would be the level of control.
  

  Rutherford was right, religion is a snare and a racket!

  That too is obviously your opinion but then he wasn't the first person to make such a comment nor was he the last. Why you would choose to quote Rutherford is strange as he was using this type of agenda and comment in order to promote his own racket. As well, he was an incredible bigot with his anti-semetic attitudes so I don't think his opinion on any subject would carry the slightest bit of weight or credibility except perhaps to those he brainwashed.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Cult Warning Signs

  NO OFFENSE TO REPUBLICANS (i really mean it) ,but when i took the questions and awnsered them according to G.W. Bush'es record he seems to be an "unsafe group/leader". While his office may not be personally responsible for every fowl up he is responsible because he argueably instigated many of them. So does the concept of a finite term limit ease peoples mind that he is a bad leader? I am not trying to get in a red blue debate. I am simply trying to figure out where does the line in the sand lay.

  I think the line issome type of peer pressure. Many groups dont have the "always on" persona. They have the concept that they only exist for a finite time frame. So one day you will get out of the army, one day a better leader willcome, etc. Many cults are infinite absolutist. THey never have the concept of completing a term or realistically attainable goal.
• 

  MungoBaobab

  drwtsn32- Decent enough link, but all of those warning signs might just as easily apply to any other religion. I like to compare lists like this against the largest Christian denomination, the Catholics, and see how they hold up.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. Papacy

  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. The One True Church

  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. Who can count that high? Real estate, antiquities, etc

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

  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. Must practice confession & eucarist for salvation, Excommunication, etc

  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. Abuse, too much focus on doctrine, hypocrisy of members, etc

  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. Pretty much any weeknight on the History Channel

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

  9. The group/leader is always right. Infallibility of the pope

  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. Doctrine of... some Latin thing! "Mother Church"

  Happy Guy- It's not hard to imagine a few staunch Catholics in a church every bit as dogmatic as your worst elderette. Some people just want to be controlled. If one were to consider everyone ever baptized as a Witness, add that to the figures for what the WTS calls active publishers, then figure in the stragglers who come to memorial, and call these people Jehovah's Witnesses, you'd get a much different picture of the Dub community. I posit that the "core members" (JW publishers) of any religion are a group that wants to be told what to believe and how to act. Most religions place a measure of conrol over their members. Some just take that measure more seriously. Why are there no old cults? Everything defined as a cult is a new religious movement. The term "cult" is used maliciously by established religions to keep their theological monopoly over the masses.

  As far as Rutherford, the reason I would quote him is for the irony of his statement. It's ironic for all the reasons you cite. It's not just for the irony that I like this quote better than, say, Marx's "Religion is the opiate of the masses;" "snare and a racket" just has a nice ring to it!

  I don't think his opinion on any subject would carry the slightest bit of weight or credibility except perhaps to those he brainwashed.

  Surely you don't think that! That's a classic ad hominem argument. Just because someone is a bigot that doesn't mean EVERYTHING they do or say lacks credibility.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Mungo, I agree that many religions have cult-like traits. I think the Bible promotes it!
• 

  MungoBaobab

  The Bible, the Koran, the Torah... And as for the Kama Sutra, well, like I said, some people like to be dominated!
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Gary B.

  I'LL try to look it up.

  As far as recruiters since I and my sister is in their target demo we get called all the time. They are very dishonest, and seem to be at parity with jws. While you could say "its the military duh you know what they are about" that could be said about any group. Also they tailor the pitches to your demo.

  My sister gets called and the lady talks to her about rebuilding schools, infastructure, and clean water in Iraq. My sister replied comicaly "they would not need to rebuild it if you guys did not blow it up. How come compton high does have text books and they are building schools for iraqi kids?". I get the be all you can be army of one crap. Since I am disabled I found it odd at how cold they turn. They treat me like I am a leper. All of a sudden I went from an inheirently superior male specimen to trash fish to be thrown back. In plain verbage if you are not a patriot they basically lie or bribe you to join.

  I am sure the closer you get to enlistment (baptism) the more "truth" you learn. Once you are in, and commited the whole nature is revealed and many people crack. The yelling, gore, dehumanization (of your self or the enemy), etc is not a pitch the recruiters use. Thats the same system cults use except the military has a shorter hang time between false hopes and cold truth. So while you can learn about the true nature of the military in a day, it may take months to learn about a cult.

  Also note you sign your self to the military all at once and instantly become theirs 24-7. Cults can't do this. They are not popular enough to have people walk off the street into their arms. If you compound the time spent (I believe the JWs estimate 250 return visite/ meetings before a person is baptized) They seem to follow a simular arc. If you use human psychology care taking/ tactile simulation builds trust. Eating, sleeping, team bonding, and grooming is almost important in the military as combat skills. The constant touching that they require during training builds more trust. The sleep depo that they mandate also eases suceptablity to suggestion. So the military probally uses the most advanced cult tactics than any modern cult.

  Maybe the reason the military is able to exist as a dangerous cult is because they are so good at it the victims actually believe their programming; that despite all the evil dealt by a military complexe the military is a possitive force. There may be no need for a standing army and simple home guard may be all we need to be relatively secure.