Hi all.

I'd like to report suspect groups that fit criteria to be cults, so they may be further examined and evaluated by Rick Ross, and other cult awareness websites. I prefer not to "out" these groups without accurate verification & information. It is easy to be incorrect about a certain group or organization, when one has either inaccurate information or they have gotten the information from a delinquent, hostile or renagade source.

Q: How do I submit these to Rick Ross?

Q: What other legitimate cult websites are available, and how do I report to them?

Thanks in advance, Prosemo.

Not sure if your request was meant to be posted here on the forum as it seems to be realted to the Admin of the board.

However you did mention [i:26b14e0b31]'delinquent, hostile or renagade sources' [/i:26b14e0b31]

What do you mean by these loaded terms?

Prosemo:

You may evaluate groups yourself based upon "warning signs" and frequently asked questions.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also [www.culteducation.com]

If you find breaking local newspaper stories and/or wire service articles about a group you can link them up.

See [www.cultnews.net]

If you suspect criminal wrongdoing you should contact local law enforcement in your area.

Other than that you can share your concerns here at the message board.

"However you did mention 'delinquent, hostile or renagade sources'
What do you mean by these loaded terms?"

What I meant is this: often we can get information about certain groups and organizations that can lead us to believe they are cults. Sometimes this information is given by people who have an agenda with a certain group. They may have been asked to leave, or they may have some gripe about a group that very well may be legitimate. My reasoning for examination and evaluation is to this end. If I am going to be sure that a group is actually a cult, I want to have more information than, lets say, an announcement or flyer about the group. It would be wonderful if there are researchers out there who actually look in to such matters.

For example, below I posted a "press release" regarding a book called "Gnospel" and a group called "Theohumanity", I received that I strongly suspect as being somewhat cult-ish. But, I have only that (and some hostile replies to my pointed queries and an apology, as the content attacks buddhists like me) and their website to go on. To verify a cult, isn't the best evidentiary, to hear from someone who has been in or around the group. Otherwise, research could be conducted. Indeed, I doubt this group entraps members. But, there is little doubt they indoctrinate, as their text betrays this.

Before sounding alarms, its best to know who is innocent and who isn't.

Hope this explains my context. Thanks, Prosemo.

Again, see the criteria.

[b:7f64f17269]Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader[/b:7f64f17269]

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

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

[b:7f64f17269]How is the word "cult" defined? [/b:7f64f17269]

Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Hi Prosemo,

There are people about that look into these sorts of things, and if you are particularly concerned with a little dedication and a curious nature you too could become a cult researcher. Never enough I say, if you have a particular interest such as Buddhist cults all the better. I imagine that there are Buddhist groups and associations that would have knowledge and experience of Buddhist cults.

Good that you like to be informed, but just a word from my own experience, just because someone was kicked out of a group and then goes on to say bad things about them and that they are a cult does not mean they are delinquent hostile or renegade. People are kicked out of cults all the time for asking the "wrong" questions or being resistant to attempts to dominate and control them. There is nothing really to gain from exposing a group, many ex members speak out due to concern for others to not to be taken in as they realise they themselves were.

cultreporter stated "...just because someone was kicked out of a group and then goes on to say bad things about them and that they are a cult does not mean they are delinquent hostile or renegade."

I agree. My concern is in the spirit of fairness and accuracy in sourcing and reportage. I realize how many people have escaped and had trouble gaining belief in their stories. My only reason for considering their story is verification. I am the son and relative of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and attorneys, and I grew up in the the heart of the intrigues of the political labyrinth in Washington D.C. So, I have been trained to cover my tracks, making sure I am correct.

I too have been approached by Moonies, Clair Prophet's people (she now has severe alzheimers and the compound in paradise, MT is falling apart...turn about is fair play!), Rajneeshees, Landmark Forum lunacy, Amway (I was young and niave and didn't know about how coersive it was then - I learned and got out, before the downline I was in got sued into oblivion) and a dozen or so "channellers". (I must look like an easy mark. They simply don't realize that I am their pandora's box.)

I don't have a lot of time for such research as I have my own business and a family that prioitizes my time. So, I will continue to post and, in some small way, work to reveal charlatans

So, please understand that I realize that the victims far outweigh those who exagerate or lie about a particular group's activities.

Thanks for your concern, Prosemo

Quote
Prosemo
I'd like to report suspect groups that fit criteria to be cults, ...

Also try

INFORM - Religious / Cult Awareness Organisation

To whom it may concern:

The so-called INFORM organization is associated with Eileen Barker.

Barker has been called a "cult apologist" and has worked closely with both Scientology and the Unification Church of Rev. Moon.

She once received funding for a book about the Unfication Church in part from Rev. Moon.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is a subsection within the Ross Institute database titled "Cult Apologits"? and it contains articles that explain Barker's history and her association with groups called "cults."

I would not recommend that anyone contact INFORM.

Quote
rrmoderator
To whom it may concern:

The so-called INFORM organization is associated with Eileen Barker.

Barker has been called a "cult apologist" and has worked closely with both Scientology and the Unification Church of Rev. Moon.

She once received funding for a book about the Unfication Church in part from Rev. Moon.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is a subsection within the Ross Institute database titled "Cult Apologits"? and it contains articles that explain Barker's history and her association with groups called "cults."

I would not recommend that anyone contact INFORM.

Hmm - thanks for that. Yet this org. is a registered UK charity, is supported by a whole list of distinguished people, and is also hosted by the London School of Economics. I was alerted of the existence of INFORM by a pyschotherapist of 5 years training whom I met at an Osho-related trantra weekend. Obviously further reserach needs to be carried out!!