luthergrunge:

Very simple answer.

See [www.culteducation.com]

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.

Ten signs of a safe group/leader.

1. A safe group/leader will answer your questions without becoming judgmental and punitive.

2. A safe group/leader will disclose information such as finances and often offer an independently audited financial statement regarding budget and expenses. Safe groups and leaders will tell you more than you want to know.

3. A safe group/leader is often democratic, sharing decision making and encouraging accountability and oversight.

4. A safe group/leader may have disgruntled former followers, but will not vilify, excommunicate and forbid others from associating with them.

5. A safe group/leader will not have a paper trail of overwhelmingly negative records, books, articles and statements about them.

6. A safe group/leader will encourage family communication, community interaction and existing friendships and not feel threatened.

7. A safe group/leader will recognize reasonable boundaries and limitations when dealing with others.

8. A safe group/leader will encourage critical thinking, individual autonomy and feelings of self-esteem.

9. A safe group/leader will admit failings and mistakes and accept constructive criticism and advice.

10. A safe group/leader will not be the only source of knowledge and learning excluding everyone else, but value dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Defining a Cult

* Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?

No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.

* How is the word "cult" defined?

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:

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

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

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

* Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?

Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

hi luthergrunge,
recovering from one of those very fringe gurdjieff groups myself, i can only say that i have no answers but share your question. as a reformed true believer of all things gurdjieffian it is difficult for me still to untangle the threads in the ideas of the 'great' g himself. actually a study of gurdjieff and his people, his inner circle, the lives of those who were most loyal to him and those that left, especially ouspensky, is a great case study in any cultish group of any nature. there are no easy answers i can find. but the looking itself, proves very rewarding. g was certainly a highly controversial teacher. he admitted to using shock tactics, humiliation, confrontation to 'awaken' his students. the gurdjieff material provides a rationale for this that when i first encountered it, made sense to me. but here's what i think after much much much torment and personal devastation and rebuilding. those tactics probably aren't safe or workable. no one i know of within the gurdjieff lineage is emerging equipt to take on world problems or spread love and joy in any kind of enlightened way. i think the seeds of the disease that many of the offshoots are now recognized to be, were present with g himself. ouspensky seeked to remedy this, by breaking off and forming a kinder, gentler 'work.' i participated briefly within the gurdjieff foundation and i think this is the most stable and non abusive strain....of the teaching. i would turn to them if i were curious. i think the material is fascinating to read about. much can be gleaned from that. the good the bad and the ugly. taking it all in, i am turned back to myself, which, in my experience, for better or worse, turns out to be better than the crazy-making dynamic of any group i've been aware of or a part of. peace.

Does that include the various forms and groups of Christianity?

excuse me. i wasn't clear. i was speaking of 4th way groups specifically, and within my experience.

"Yes. There are splinter groups that have been called "cults," such as the Fellowship of Friends led by Robert Burton and The Work led by Sharon Gans."

Sharon Gans does not lead "the Work". The Work refers to the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky system and whatever one might think of it, is not related to the cult that Gans, Robert Klein, Fred Mindel et al runs.

I think in regards to Luthergrunge it is not a good thing to judge peoples ideas or believes so a cult is defined by the way a group behaves, and certain social claims they may make, like all other people being evil or you should only follow this one person etc. We need to be careful not to be attacking religion or believe generally that wouldn't help anyone. You will find on these forums many forums about abusive priests or church's that are sometimes even part of a mainstream organization. I think it safe to say that there are cults within Catholicism but you wouldn't label Catholicism a cult.

Newone it is interested what you say about Gurdijeff. I have been quite curious about him for a while, he sounds like a cult leader and there are many of these supposed "esoteric" teachers from the last two decades that appear to have been cults leaders, Ouspensky likely being one of them. I cannot comment on their current state but I would say it is quite likely that Theosophy was at least originally a cult. I spent a few months with a group called the Gnostic Movement lead by Mark Pritchard, The Gnostic Movement (which is not Gnostic at all) uses the teachings of a man who called himself Samael Aun Weor (real name Victor Gomez Roderiques). This could be an interesting case as Roderiques seems to have ripped all these other people sometimes word for word and claimed it as his own work. You will find a number of posts on here about Samael Aun Woer groups being cults.

As far as I can tell no anthropologist has ever looked at this crazy situation as they are all clear cases of misappropriation of other peoples cultures whether it be Hinduism, Buddhism, Suffism, a combination of those religions or any other ancient form of spirituality. The tricky situation in these kind of groups is that the dishonest starts in the believe system and the work or complete lack of it that were at the root of the "teachings".

I have had some thoughts about this New Religious Movement concept, clearly that term is way too neutral and it should be kept that way. However if the word cult is a problem, and there is the historic problem of the word cult actually be neutral as to mean a small group within a religious movement, then there are other way to express the idea that is behind someone calling a group a cult. there is probably a lot of value to the word cult since people know when they come across a dangerous or suspect group to say"hey this seems funny, is it a cult?" and therefore look into it. However I think if the word cult is to be banned I think the anti cult movement should move to the term Dangerous Religious Movement. Of course other terms would need to be used for bad companies and what not, but danger is pretty non specific but also pretty easy to proof in a libel case, I would think.

So I think anyone who is dealing with esoteric cult groups and still wants to find meaning should go back to the original sources, the stuff the original nut cases clearly read, but still read that with a critical mind.

I hope this is helpful and I am not ranting too much.

I would add. That a number of sufi groups have stated that Gurdjieff teachings are not sufi.
Now wether Gurdjieff was really a spiritual teacher or a con (has it ever even cross your mind?)
is another thing.



If I recall writer Ivan Stang in his "High Weirdness by Mail"* commented that Gurdjieff was "probably laughing all the way to the bank" (paraphrase). It sorta stuck to my mind.





*note: Ivan Stang's High Weirdness by Mail is mainly a book of lists of various religious sects or sub culture movements. Its outdated due to the internet. Its not really something worth buying unless you find it free. It has very little value as far as heavy reading material is concern.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2009 07:19AM by Keir.

Could we then say based on your definition of cult that most isms that is Catholicism, Buddhism Republicanism etc... are all cultish or originally started as cults and then legitimized to become accepted religions or movements and then in turn splintered back into what is considered a cult by those who disagree with the agreed upon tenets of the "legitimate" religion or movement? Just tryng to understand the logic.

luthergrunge:

You are not here to "understand," but rather as an "Internet troll" or apologist, which your posted opinion here about a "definition of cult" demonstrates.

Anyone seriously interested in a working definition of a cult can easily understand use of the word by reviewing "Cult Formation" by Robert Jay Lifton, a former professor at Harvard Medical school and author of the book "Thought Reform and Psychology of Totalsim."

Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

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

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

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

See [www.culteducation.com]

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

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.

The destructiveness of groups called "cults" can bes measured objectively through court documents and press reports that specifically record their destructive behavior, which is systemic within the group and typically mandated by its leadership as a docrine, such as medical neglect or child abuse.

gurdjieffian tricksters love to lie and put on disguises and try to pass for something or someone they are not. this is sport for them. and psychological warfare. and 'fleecing the sheep.' they think it is fun and funny. and they honestly believe they are helping the poor inferior not-them people to wake up--seriously!!!!!

the way these 'schools' work, in my experience, and opinion, is that when you are smart enough to walk away from the bs, you have graduated.

gurdjieff and would-bes really must laugh all the way to the bank, like was said earlier in this thread.

the movie 'The Game' with michael douglas is a good, if extreme example of what 4th way sadism is like. another movie, the ej gold people seemed especially fond of at one point, was fight club. young urban professionals so bored and disconnected they band together, in secret, at night, to beat the crap out of each other.

4th wayers like to appropriate the judas story from christianity and throw in a lot of references to death of ego and crucifixion and zen whacks on the back--whatever metaphors they can finf to support their 'cruelty is spirtually cool' thing. but if you remember that they are liars (the ones i knew admitted it happily) it is easy to see clear of their self-importance. contrast the pomp and circumstance of their self-presentation with that of any humble spiritual folk you may have come across, from within whatever tradition. there is the difference. i like to think of thich nhat hanh's face and dalai 'my religion is kindness' lama and mahatma gandhi: 'there is no religion higher than truth.'