Thanks Hopeful Soul.

From "Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults: Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts"

- Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

[www.icsahome.com]

I've highlighted four types of cult critiques proposed by Introvigne:

Quote

Introvigne proposes that religious and secular critiques of cults fall into a four‑category classification system. [b:36b8f8e5e4]Secular critics [/b:36b8f8e5e4](or what he calls “anti‑cult” approaches) [b:36b8f8e5e4]are either “rationalist” and concerned with the fraudulent claims of cultic groups, or “post-rationalist,” which Introvigne defines as relying “almost exclusively on brainwashing as a preferred explanation for the success of ‘cults’“[/b:36b8f8e5e4] (p. 15).[b:36b8f8e5e4] Religious critics[/b:36b8f8e5e4] (what Introvigne calls “counter‑cult” approaches) [b:36b8f8e5e4]may also be divided into rationalist and post‑rationalist subgroups.[/b:36b8f8e5e4] Representative of [b:36b8f8e5e4]rationalist religious critiques [/b:36b8f8e5e4]are groups such as the Dialog Center and the Christian Research Institute, both of which [b:36b8f8e5e4]focus on theological critiques of cultic groups. Post‑rationalist counter-cultists “invest ‘cult’ leaders with almost superhuman powers and abilities ... [and they are said to be] in contact with Satan or the occult[/b:36b8f8e5e4].” [b:36b8f8e5e4]Building upon Introvigne’s use of Sai Baba as an example, one could say that rationalist anti-cultists would try to expose the fraudulent nature of his miracles, post‑rationalist anti‑cultists would focus on how Sai Baba’s manipulations may be used to control and exploit followers, rationalist counter-cultists would offer an orthodox Christian critique of Sai Baba’s theology, while post‑rationalist counter-cultists would accept Sai Baba’s “miracles,” but attribute them to his demonic powers[/b:36b8f8e5e4].

Summary of types:

1. Secular rationalist - criticize fraudulent claims of cults
2. Secular post-rationalist - criticize thought reform and brainwashing techniques used for destructive purposes.
3. Religious rationalist - criticize theology / doctrine of group
4. Religious post-rationalist - believe cults are powered or driven by Satan / occult force.



I guess the problem here is that I am type 1 and 2, so I don't understand the religious approach in general, and I particularly don't understand the religious approach when the religion you are holding up as "The Truth" is one which is considered by some mainstream religious critics to be a cult itself (because in their view LDS doctrine is 'wrong') - I'm not saying this to offend anyone, but as an outsider to all religions it looks a bit self-contradictory.

What I am really asking, Hopeful Soul, is whether you have any secular rationalist and / or post-rationalist criticisms of Impact, based on the classifications described above, or are your criticisms ALL religious? And if so, what are they?

I'm not saying one way is better or worse than the other, just trying to clarify where you stand. Also, out of interest, what do you think of the fourth category (religious post-rationalist)?

PS I don't entirely agree with these classifications, but I do think they're a useful starting point to understand different points of view.

Question Lady I agree the important question is whether they are harmful, but who decides what is harmful?

Another PS:

Those rationalist labels don't say much, it might be easier to summarize the criticisms as "The problem with the group is..."

1. Fraudulent claims
2. Brainwashing
3. Flawed Theology
4. The Devil's work

It would be interesting to see which of the four different types people here believe are the problems, using the labels to avoid going into detail that might be construed as proselytizing. :)

what to know before going to an Impace training seminar -

DON'T GO!!!


as my doctor told me, her sister had to quit a very well paid job as head of a Human Resourse Department of a big company in South Africa because she absolutely refused to go along with the policy that all company employees attend the courses.

my doctor said; "IT - IS -- A -- CULT! stay as far away from it as you can!"

my advice is: if you don't want to get burnt, don't play with fire.

enuf said

regards
'shad'

Quote
SaneAgain
Summary of types:

1. Secular rationalist - criticize fraudulent claims of cults
2. Secular post-rationalist - criticize thought reform and brainwashing techniques used for destructive purposes.
3. Religious rationalist - criticize theology / doctrine of group
4. Religious post-rationalist - believe cults are powered or driven by Satan / occult force.



I guess the problem here is that I am type 1 and 2, so I don't understand the religious approach in general, and I particularly don't understand the religious approach when the religion you are holding up as "The Truth" is one which is considered by some mainstream religious critics to be a cult itself (because in their view LDS doctrine is 'wrong') - I'm not saying this to offend anyone, but as an outsider to all religions it looks a bit self-contradictory.

Question Lady I agree the important question is whether they are harmful, but who decides what is harmful?

Those who have been directly negatively affected get to decide what has been harmful to them. When large numbers of people report having been harmed by similar groups, I tend to believe them.

The other way I determine this is by asking myself how I would feel if that were done to me?

Whether secular or religious, there seems to be a consensus that deceiving people for money and power over them is wrong. Presumably that is because people don't want to be lied to. There is an implicit underlying value that people should be allowed free and informed choice. Covert mind control violates this value.

When I hear "who decides what is harmful" that sounds a lot like the LGAT apologists. Like this mind twister:


[board.culteducation.com]

I'm not sure why a religious approach would be different from a secular one except in some of the underlying values and beliefs. And religious and secular people can, and often do, reach the same conclusion by different routes. Like I'm a 1,2,3, & sort of a 4 and these all overlap for me.

Yes, some people think Mormons are wrong about a good many things. People who believe in God think atheists are wrong about a good many things. Atheists and Mormons think I am wrong about a good many things. It seems to me that any process of evaluation is comparing one's own beliefs and values with the beliefs and values being taught by and lived by a group.

Question Lady wrote:

Quote

Those who have been directly negatively affected get to decide what has been harmful to them. When large numbers of people report having been harmed by similar groups, I tend to believe them.

The other way I determine this is by asking myself how I would feel if that were done to me? ...

When I hear "who decides what is harmful" that sounds a lot like the LGAT apologists

By your criteria, Mormonism would be considered a cult because there are people who have complained on this forum and elsewhere about being harmed by that religion, and would not like to have been born in a Mormon family. Orthodox christian counter-cult groups also class Mormonism as a cult because they say the doctrine is 'wrong'. Which is precisely why I asked the question - nothing to do with [i:4924726120]being[/i:4924726120] an apologist, but raising a question that apologists raise so that we can clarify what we are talking about and not look ridiculous by having one 'cult' condemning another because of doctrinal differences.

The biggest apologist argument in popular culture is that cults are nothing but new religious movements and being opposed to cults is a form of religious bigotry. So that is what people are playing into when they condemn Impact on the basis of it being contrary to Mormonism or even mainstream christianity.
The secular and religious REASONS for calling something a cult are very different. The secular reasons may be used by religious people, but not vice versa.

The fraud and brainwashing exist regardless of your religion and are therefore more universal than the religious reasons, which simply say that the group is wrong BECAUSE the doctrine is different to religion X or that it is the devil's work. Those reasons don't mean anything to people outside religion X or non-religious people.

If religion X happens to have "honesty" as a value and the reason for calling something a cult is deceptive recruitment techniques, then that is using a secular reason, not a religious reason, even if the religious person values honesty for religious reasons.

I personally think the doctrinal problems with Impact's teachings are:
1. They claim they're not a religion - so its all dishonest, the "fraud" problem.
2. Very interesting. I would really like for someone like Hopeful Soul to explain the differences and similarities between Impact teachings and LDS teachings, only not on this thread because I know some people feel it tends towards preaching - but if its on a separate thread labelled to indicate that its about religion I'm pretty sure no one would object. And I'm sure a lot of Impact / LDS people would like to read about the theological implications.

Someone else started this thread a while back, maybe it could be used for a discussion of the "type 3 and 4" problems with Impact - doctrine and devil's work.

Its called Impact Trainings and Religion:

[board.culteducation.com]

Anyway, I am sorry if this has gone way off-topic on this thread, I only wanted to make an opening for the doctrinal issues to be discussed without it coming across as preaching or minimizing the other problems (coercive persuasion / brainwashing).

To whom it may concern:

Please read the rules agreed upon before anyone posts at this board.

No preaching.

This is not a board to discuss personal beliefs, but rather the behavior of some groups and leaders.

Please stay focused on the topic of the thread.

thank u moderator

Moderator, can you please clarify which person or people your message is intended for?

Please also clarify what you mean by preaching and whether it is within the rules to post on the thread "Impact and Religion" about the religious behaviour and teachings of Impact and its leaders.

Thanks.

Shadow, I think you are confusing Quest south africa with Impact's quest course. They're different organisations, your doctor was probably talking about Quest south africa :)

Quote
SaneAgain
Question Lady wrote:

Quote

Those who have been directly negatively affected get to decide what has been harmful to them. When large numbers of people report having been harmed by similar groups, I tend to believe them.

The other way I determine this is by asking myself how I would feel if that were done to me? ...

When I hear "who decides what is harmful" that sounds a lot like the LGAT apologists

By your criteria, Mormonism would be considered a cult because there are people who have complained on this forum and elsewhere about being harmed by that religion, . . .

Without going off topic, I want to clarify a couple of things. First, I did not suggest criteria for determining what is or is not a cult. Rather, I suggested that the question "is the group harmful?" is more to the point than "is it a cult?" Asking whether the group is harmful circumvents definitional issues about what is or is not a cult and focuses instead on what the group does and how it affects people.

Secondly, I did not mean to imply that you are a cult apologist Sane Again. It is abundantly clear from your contributions to this forum that this is not the case. Thank you for clarifying your reasons for asking the question.

Quote
SaneAgain
I would really like for someone like Hopeful Soul to explain the differences and similarities between Impact teachings and LDS teachings, . . .

I don't know if you saw this exchange I had with exImpact a few weeks ago. I think it is an example of a seeming similarity that is actually very different.
[board.culteducation.com]