The defense FOR TWI usually involves saying "cult" is a ubiquitous, over-used, randomly-used, term.
There's no legal way to define a cult, is there?
The frustration, maybe, is looking a wayfer in the eye, knowing that they know that you know that they know that you know that they know. But nobody can be the accuser, and nobody can admit to wrong.
I think some of the non-pejorative uses of "cult" pre-date the "cult" scare of the seventies. Movies that are "cult classics", the "cult of Mary" in Catholicism, "cargo cults" in WWII...
The defense FOR TWI usually involves saying "cult" is a ubiquitous, over-used, randomly-used, term.
There's no legal way to define a cult, is there?
The frustration, maybe, is looking a wayfer in the eye, knowing that they know that you know that they know that you know that they know. But nobody can be the accuser, and nobody can admit to wrong.
Wouldn't matter if there was. First amendment, ya know.
It would be an extremely difficult thing to put any kind of parameters or legal limitations other than already existing laws that address issues not necessarily inherent to religious worship, like polygamy or human sacrifice.
If some practice comes up that requires society deal with it, that practice would be targeted rather than the religion.
Wouldn't matter if there was. First amendment, ya know.
It would be an extremely difficult thing to put any kind of parameters or legal limitations other than already existing laws that address issues not necessarily inherent to religious worship, like polygamy or human sacrifice.
If some practice comes up that requires society deal with it, that practice would be targeted rather than the religion.
I don't know if TWI is religious in nature or not . . . how does one define religion versus outright scam? Was TWI a movement, it just ultimately failed?
I believe VPW existed. He broke no laws?
Small green cards were signed and videos were made and people coerced to watch them. Yes, some line was crossed that could be articulated . . . (IMO) . . . without going into the "OMG, Freedom of Religion, My rights! blah blah blah"
Maybe the green card could have some footnote about how its claims were not approved by the FDA, and is not recommended for pregnant women and children. Use at your own risk.
The word 'cult' used to label twi was a bigoted slur, fitting definitions 6 and 7 of the link Rocky posted. I once read a newspaper article calling some presumably educated person a "cult expert". Isn't that nice? I'm sure KKK members consider themselves to be "N word experts". Nazis are "Jew experts". What a joke!
I agree that calling women who breast feed a cult is lame.
One of the problems of fundamentalist/evangelical protestant thinking in general, and of TWI specifically, is narrowing down the meanings of terms to the point where they can't really be used in free-flowing conversation.
It's hard for me to see that narrowing the term "cult" is particularly useful. There are "cults" that are harmless, like the followings of sports figures or rock stars, and at the other extreme there are cults that are much more cold-blooded and vicious than TWI was, such as Scientology or Momentus. There are even spoof cults like The Church of the SubGenius!
The feature that distinguishes a harmless cult from a harmful one is whether or not the leaders are honest with the followers about what they are in for. The leaders of harmful cults make their followers deployable to a hidden agenda. The overt agenda of TWI was to take the Word Over the World. The hidden agenda was to provide money, power, adulation and sexual prey for Wierwille and the Trustees.
I don't know if TWI is religious in nature or not . . . how does one define religion versus outright scam? Was TWI a movement, it just ultimately failed?
I believe VPW existed. He broke no laws?
Small green cards were signed and videos were made and people coerced to watch them. Yes, some line was crossed that could be articulated . . . (IMO) . . . without going into the "OMG, Freedom of Religion, My rights! blah blah blah"
Maybe the green card could have some footnote about how its claims were not approved by the FDA, and is not recommended for pregnant women and children. Use at your own risk.
Wouldn't matter if there was. First amendment, ya know.
It would be an extremely difficult thing to put any kind of parameters or legal limitations other than already existing laws that address issues not necessarily inherent to religious worship, like polygamy or human sacrifice.
If some practice comes up that requires society deal with it, that practice would be targeted rather than the religion.
Right. It's the action that gets evaluated by the law, not the belief behind it, right?
If anyone's interested there's a book called, Cults, Culture and the Law: Perspectives on New Religious Movements, edited by Thomas Robbins, WIlliam C. Shepherd, and James McBride. Scholars Press, Chico, CA. It's put out by the American Academy of Religious Studies in Religion.
TWI is mentioned in this book on pg. 111 in the chapter titled, "Cults and Conversion: The Case for Informed Consent" by Richard Delgado. Here is a little bit from it:
"Values of self-determination already play a significant role in the debate about religious cultism. On a rhetorical level, defenders of these groups [cults] ask why young adults should not be free to join whatever religious organizations they desire. Opponents respond that free choice is exactly what these groups deny. Constitutional analysis of state intervention raises consent issues, as do tort and criminal actions brought by cult members after unsuccessful deprogrammings, and suits by ex-members against cult leaders for unlawful imprisonment, slavery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud."
Delgado goes on to advocate for a consent agreement when a person joins a group, meaning the group gives full disclosure about its intentions, beliefs, etc. and the new recruit agrees to it.
I know I laughed out loud when I read this article because it seems to me that groups like "cults" do not reveal their true nature right off the bat. Usually it is camouflaged by statements like, "we do biblical research" while in the back room they have people pretending to do that, or at least doing something they CALL biblical research as defined by the cult.
What do you all think? Do you think a group could even be required by law to deliver a consent form for recruits to sign? And what if a recruit signed it? What exactly would that mean for that person's life?
What do you all think? Do you think a group could even be required by law to deliver a consent form for recruits to sign? And what if a recruit signed it? What exactly would that mean for that person's life?
Absolutely not. Did we sign something to become American citizens?
Just remove conditions that encourage cult leaders to build cults. Income to maintain a home for family and children is taxed. Churches should be taxed.
Would any of us have joined The Way if we had known what was in our futures?
Put another way, hindsight is 20/20. If only there could be a way to have that hindsight on the front end, eh?
Absolutely not. Did we sign something to become American citizens?
Indeed, I don't see how they could even conceptualize any kind of informed consent. There's no way the cult would agree with what we understand about them after years of involvement and then leaving. Too subjective.
Since this topic is called, Cults, Cults. Everywhere, I thought I'd include a link to the recent issue of ICSA's journal with the lead article "The Challenge of Defining Cult."
The pre-occupation with making money . . . Foxy Q-Tip once announced making some list, the same list Scientology (Tom Cruise and Xenu and friends) had fought for, does anyone remember what that list is?
Q-Tip made a big deal about tax-exempt status, really emphasized that point, professing the desire to work together with other churches (look how we're so open-minded . . . *barf*)
Years earlier, Way Disciple, we were strictly instructed not to witness to people who looked like illegal immigrants (*cough* "short and brown") . . . because it somehow risks tax-exempt status.
WOW that list really does nail it. Even years and years later, there's a part of my brain that still resists the concept that TWI is a cult. A part of my brain.
Right. It's the action that gets evaluated by the law, not the belief behind it, right?
If anyone's interested there's a book called, Cults, Culture and the Law: Perspectives on New Religious Movements, edited by Thomas Robbins, WIlliam C. Shepherd, and James McBride. Scholars Press, Chico, CA. It's put out by the American Academy of Religious Studies in Religion.
TWI is mentioned in this book on pg. 111 in the chapter titled, "Cults and Conversion: The Case for Informed Consent" by Richard Delgado. Here is a little bit from it:
"Values of self-determination already play a significant role in the debate about religious cultism. On a rhetorical level, defenders of these groups [cults] ask why young adults should not be free to join whatever religious organizations they desire. Opponents respond that free choice is exactly what these groups deny. Constitutional analysis of state intervention raises consent issues, as do tort and criminal actions brought by cult members after unsuccessful deprogrammings, and suits by ex-members against cult leaders for unlawful imprisonment, slavery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud."
Delgado goes on to advocate for a consent agreement when a person joins a group, meaning the group gives full disclosure about its intentions, beliefs, etc. and the new recruit agrees to it.
I know I laughed out loud when I read this article because it seems to me that groups like "cults" do not reveal their true nature right off the bat. Usually it is camouflaged by statements like, "we do biblical research" while in the back room they have people pretending to do that, or at least doing something they CALL biblical research as defined by the cult.
What do you all think? Do you think a group could even be required by law to deliver a consent form for recruits to sign? And what if a recruit signed it? What exactly would that mean for that person's life?
I am reminded of the "hold harmless" agreements we were pressured into signing once the Momentus "training" was underway. They were attempts to keep people who were harmed by Momentus from suing. I don't think they were legally binding because no one was informed about the true nature of the "training" before the signing. Victor Barnard was one of the star pupils of the Momentus weekend I underwent, and we see how much good it did him!
About a year and four months or so after I took Momentus, I realized I was under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5 because I had sworn to observe the Momentus hold harmless agreement. I got up in front of a congregational meeting of about 60 people (including John Lynn) and publicly repented of my foolish (Galatians 3:1) sin against the Lord. It seems that every cult leader manipulates her or his followers into making thoughtless promises, and then PREACHES how we DARE NOT go back on a promise we've made to God. Baloney... all we ever have to do when we've made a mistake (committed ourselves to the wrong thing) is to change back to being committed to the right thing! That's what repentance is!
I am reminded of the "hold harmless" agreements we were pressured into signing once the Momentus "training" was underway. They were attempts to keep people who were harmed by Momentus from suing. I don't think they were legally binding because no one was informed about the true nature of the "training" before the signing. Victor Barnard was one of the star pupils of the Momentus weekend I underwent, and we see how much good it did him!
About a year and four months or so after I took Momentus, I realized I was under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5 because I had sworn to observe the Momentus hold harmless agreement. I got up in front of a congregational meeting of about 60 people (including John Lynn) and publicly repented of my foolish (Galatians 3:1) sin against the Lord. It seems that every cult leader manipulates her or his followers into making thoughtless promises, and then PREACHES how we DARE NOT go back on a promise we've made to God. Baloney... all we ever have to do when we've made a mistake (committed ourselves to the wrong thing) is to change back to being committed to the right thing! That's what repentance is!
Love,
Steve
That damn salt covenant!
-----
edit, looked up salt covenant. Wikipedia includes a book published by American Christian Press (twi) as a source.
"Destructive cult" has generally referred to groups whose members have, through deliberate action, physically injured or killed other members of their own group or other people. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance limit use of the term to specifically refer to religious groups that "have caused or are liable to cause loss of life among their membership or the general public".[99] Psychologist Michael Langone, executive director of the anti-cult group International Cultic Studies Association, defines a destructive cult as "a highly manipulative group which exploits and sometimes physically and/or psychologically damages members and recruits"
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Hyperbolic writing is sometimes LAZY writing.
That's the case here.
The writer IS correct that there's a LOT of nosy people who
seem to be determined to push that idea, and that's
intenational. However, it doesn't even fall under the
heading "cult of personality."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Call TWI a hate group.
Or is that milking it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Different usages of the word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yeah.....I get that.
But if the word "cult" is going to continually be diluted to ascribe it to mothers who promote
the benefits of breast-feeding their newborn......then I've got to find a better way to describe
and LABEL that blood-sucking, money-fleecing, scum-hypocritical, scam-deceiving, plagiarist,
organization hitch-hiking a ride on the true christian/believer narrative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The defense FOR TWI usually involves saying "cult" is a ubiquitous, over-used, randomly-used, term.
There's no legal way to define a cult, is there?
The frustration, maybe, is looking a wayfer in the eye, knowing that they know that you know that they know that you know that they know. But nobody can be the accuser, and nobody can admit to wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think some of the non-pejorative uses of "cult" pre-date the "cult" scare of the seventies. Movies that are "cult classics", the "cult of Mary" in Catholicism, "cargo cults" in WWII...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Wouldn't matter if there was. First amendment, ya know.
It would be an extremely difficult thing to put any kind of parameters or legal limitations other than already existing laws that address issues not necessarily inherent to religious worship, like polygamy or human sacrifice.
If some practice comes up that requires society deal with it, that practice would be targeted rather than the religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know if TWI is religious in nature or not . . . how does one define religion versus outright scam? Was TWI a movement, it just ultimately failed?
I believe VPW existed. He broke no laws?
Small green cards were signed and videos were made and people coerced to watch them. Yes, some line was crossed that could be articulated . . . (IMO) . . . without going into the "OMG, Freedom of Religion, My rights! blah blah blah"
Maybe the green card could have some footnote about how its claims were not approved by the FDA, and is not recommended for pregnant women and children. Use at your own risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The word 'cult' used to label twi was a bigoted slur, fitting definitions 6 and 7 of the link Rocky posted. I once read a newspaper article calling some presumably educated person a "cult expert". Isn't that nice? I'm sure KKK members consider themselves to be "N word experts". Nazis are "Jew experts". What a joke!
I agree that calling women who breast feed a cult is lame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of the problems of fundamentalist/evangelical protestant thinking in general, and of TWI specifically, is narrowing down the meanings of terms to the point where they can't really be used in free-flowing conversation.
It's hard for me to see that narrowing the term "cult" is particularly useful. There are "cults" that are harmless, like the followings of sports figures or rock stars, and at the other extreme there are cults that are much more cold-blooded and vicious than TWI was, such as Scientology or Momentus. There are even spoof cults like The Church of the SubGenius!
The feature that distinguishes a harmless cult from a harmful one is whether or not the leaders are honest with the followers about what they are in for. The leaders of harmful cults make their followers deployable to a hidden agenda. The overt agenda of TWI was to take the Word Over the World. The hidden agenda was to provide money, power, adulation and sexual prey for Wierwille and the Trustees.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Go for it. See what happens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Right. It's the action that gets evaluated by the law, not the belief behind it, right?
If anyone's interested there's a book called, Cults, Culture and the Law: Perspectives on New Religious Movements, edited by Thomas Robbins, WIlliam C. Shepherd, and James McBride. Scholars Press, Chico, CA. It's put out by the American Academy of Religious Studies in Religion.
TWI is mentioned in this book on pg. 111 in the chapter titled, "Cults and Conversion: The Case for Informed Consent" by Richard Delgado. Here is a little bit from it:
"Values of self-determination already play a significant role in the debate about religious cultism. On a rhetorical level, defenders of these groups [cults] ask why young adults should not be free to join whatever religious organizations they desire. Opponents respond that free choice is exactly what these groups deny. Constitutional analysis of state intervention raises consent issues, as do tort and criminal actions brought by cult members after unsuccessful deprogrammings, and suits by ex-members against cult leaders for unlawful imprisonment, slavery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud."
Delgado goes on to advocate for a consent agreement when a person joins a group, meaning the group gives full disclosure about its intentions, beliefs, etc. and the new recruit agrees to it.
I know I laughed out loud when I read this article because it seems to me that groups like "cults" do not reveal their true nature right off the bat. Usually it is camouflaged by statements like, "we do biblical research" while in the back room they have people pretending to do that, or at least doing something they CALL biblical research as defined by the cult.
What do you all think? Do you think a group could even be required by law to deliver a consent form for recruits to sign? And what if a recruit signed it? What exactly would that mean for that person's life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would any of us have joined The Way if we had known what was in our futures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Absolutely not. Did we sign something to become American citizens?
Just remove conditions that encourage cult leaders to build cults. Income to maintain a home for family and children is taxed. Churches should be taxed.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Put another way, hindsight is 20/20. If only there could be a way to have that hindsight on the front end, eh?
Indeed, I don't see how they could even conceptualize any kind of informed consent. There's no way the cult would agree with what we understand about them after years of involvement and then leaving. Too subjective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Since this topic is called, Cults, Cults. Everywhere, I thought I'd include a link to the recent issue of ICSA's journal with the lead article "The Challenge of Defining Cult."
International Cultic Studies journal - new issue
Cheers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups . . . from Penworks' link.
Every point checks for TWI.
The pre-occupation with making money . . . Foxy Q-Tip once announced making some list, the same list Scientology (Tom Cruise and Xenu and friends) had fought for, does anyone remember what that list is?
Q-Tip made a big deal about tax-exempt status, really emphasized that point, professing the desire to work together with other churches (look how we're so open-minded . . . *barf*)
Years earlier, Way Disciple, we were strictly instructed not to witness to people who looked like illegal immigrants (*cough* "short and brown") . . . because it somehow risks tax-exempt status.
Is breast-feeding a tax-exemption?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
WOW that list really does nail it. Even years and years later, there's a part of my brain that still resists the concept that TWI is a cult. A part of my brain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I am reminded of the "hold harmless" agreements we were pressured into signing once the Momentus "training" was underway. They were attempts to keep people who were harmed by Momentus from suing. I don't think they were legally binding because no one was informed about the true nature of the "training" before the signing. Victor Barnard was one of the star pupils of the Momentus weekend I underwent, and we see how much good it did him!
About a year and four months or so after I took Momentus, I realized I was under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5 because I had sworn to observe the Momentus hold harmless agreement. I got up in front of a congregational meeting of about 60 people (including John Lynn) and publicly repented of my foolish (Galatians 3:1) sin against the Lord. It seems that every cult leader manipulates her or his followers into making thoughtless promises, and then PREACHES how we DARE NOT go back on a promise we've made to God. Baloney... all we ever have to do when we've made a mistake (committed ourselves to the wrong thing) is to change back to being committed to the right thing! That's what repentance is!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That damn salt covenant!
-----
edit, looked up salt covenant. Wikipedia includes a book published by American Christian Press (twi) as a source.
How right you are, Steve.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Oh yeah.....twi's salt covenant (cough, cough) was nothing more than a symbolic public display
of manipulative peer pressure to guilt and rein one back to twi-hierarchy.
Did Dr. Wierwille abide by a salt covenant to always do God's will?
If so, then why all the decades of plagiarism, abuse and fraud?
Yes, martindale did take the salt covenant in 1982 as witnessed by the body of twi-followers
when he was installed as twi's second president. Yet, he too, was a sexual predator as he
followed his mentor's mandates. The scriptures boldly state the SINS of these two men.
God is not mocked by their sins and failings...........THEY ARE.
The deep, embedded corruption in twi-hierarchy has NOTHING to do with spiritual vows.
One could justifiably say that their "salt covenant" is for the little people to obey
twi leadership, ALWAYS, in spite of the holy writ that trustees/directors claim to stand on.
When scripture states one thing and twi states another, they claim you VIOLATE the salt
covenant if you OBEY GOD......and not them.
Twi leadership is groveling in the dark with hirelings.
In today's vernacular.....The cult fleeth, because the cult is an hireling,
and careth not for the sheep. Jhn 10:13
.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
After some consideration, I think that I'm just going to define twi as....
Religious Indoctrination and Untoward Secrecy
1) Behavior control.......monitoring what you do and with who you associate
2) Information control....monitoring what you read and criticizing all "worldly" information
3) Thought control........monitoring your thought processes and short-circuiting critical thinking
4) Emotional control......monitoring and downplaying all emotions of hurt, grief, anger, etc.1)
Click -- Untoward Secrecy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
TWI = Total Waste of Individuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
From Wikipedia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.