A group where critical examination of information and thinking for yourself:
- is not encouraged
- is disregarded
- is discouraged
- is suppressed
- will get you in trouble
- is apparently encouraged but actually forbidden
I propose the above as a “Scale of Cult Think“.
There are plenty of groups where free and progressive thinking is the order of the day. But in many groups there is an atmosphere not really conducive to independent thought. A group tends to guard its own purpose and modus operandi. Some groups take this to detrimental levels and whips its members into line with spiritual, mental or even physical means.
There have been many historical examples of groups at level 4 or 5, but I believe a group at level 6 to be the most insidiously dangerous. Rather than listing various groups along this scale, I will encourage the readers of this blog to come up with examples of groups they know and their position on the above scale.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Good topic.
Of course the ‘Church’ of Scientology comes to mind.
It would fall under category 6.
While I believe LRH did encourage discussion & critical thinking to a great degree, and in the ’70s in the Missions & Orgs I was in this was very true, today’s church is the antithesis of this openness.
Altered intention of policies & tech such as KSW, Ethics/Justice, Auditors Code, the sanctity of Confessionals, etc. have supplanted the underlying goals of Scientology and is now run like a concentration camp of sorts.
While the PR & glitz APPEAR to embody LRH’s postulates & goals, the ‘Church’, led by a mini-dictator, has move in the opposite direction. If there was truly the intention by Management to ‘clear the planet’, the vast amount of resources, both financial & effort by parishioners, it could be done in relatively swift order.
Self-determinism is no longer tolerated, parishioners are cowed and suppressed, and PR is at an all-time low.
Good post. Public Scn at -6 and Int. at -7.
Yeah sure, all the desaster comes from misavige. Keep in mind that the roots of DM´s behavior
is based on Hubbards policy. Even the beatings. This was probably ALL Misavige duplicated and applies.
The essays on this blog :
http://blog.scientologyrecovery.com/
are worth to read, and match the topic.
My own conclusion is that it is very unfair to Hubbard to give Miscavige all the blame for the madness that the CoS has become.
Not sure how you mean “unfair to Hubbard,”unless it’s the idea that he didn’t get the justice he deserved – i.e. the blame. If you have a different idea about “unfair” to him, I’m curious what it is.
To claim that Hubbard has no part in the insanity that the CoS has turned into is to claim he is in no way cause over this…. Not Cause Over Future? Seriously.
Of course, no disagreement. It was just your wording (cryptic sounding) that made me think there might be something more to your idea and it got me curious.
Ah… all clear now?
Yes, clear. And, while I’m at it, as it relates to the post topic, let me say again that you get due credit. You’ve managed, over a number of threads, to get some of us more willing to look and see things like this, and be less fixed in the “cult think.” 🙂
And I believe that to be valuable. The journey should be to free oneself from any typed think 😉
I had to look up it up to see how “typed” would be meant in this context (nice choice of word). Your command of English is so interesting. It seems you must have either lived in an English-speaking country for a good while or that you speak it with others a lot. Or read a lot in English – I guess that one is obviously true.
Valuable is another good word on the subject. And it’s been an adventuresome journey, I can tell you!
Thanks. I often feel more comfortable writing in English than in Norwegian. Apart from the audience being larger, and that obviously has its own value, but the language offers more nuances in many areas.
I am glad that you are sticking with the adventure.
Thanks for that. Persistent to a fault is more the problem sometimes (he he) even before your blog. 🙂
Interesting, more nuances in English you say… This I’m sure is the idea when it is said that English is a rich language. The other thing that comes to mind too is the old notion that for every language a man knows he is that many men. We would probably say “viewpoints.” It’s real to me that language itself greatly tends to structure a viewpoint. (This concept goes along with Vinaire’s ideas about “programs,” I would say.) Anyway, as you can see, I find language to be a fascinating subject and it’s become a sort of avocation and even second vocation (doing some proofreading and light editing in recent years).
Interesting viewpoint regarding language as a structural mechanism for a viewpoint.
Yes, I got a sense of that from just a limited study of a couple of other languages – datums of comparable magnitude. I picked up different viewpoints in the meanings (not directly translatable) and arrangements of words and also in subtle connotations attached to even the most translatable words. Same idea for cultures, btw – when you get to know another one you learn a lot about your own. Anyway, I’m really just a beginner but language is an interest item, like I say. But it’s not exactly on topic! Maybe you’ll think of a blog post on the subject one day.
Can’t resist one more thought. Just think about it – a word is a package of thought, it’s a concept. These are in great part not “instinct” but learned, seems to me. Here’s a (frustrating) example. Sometimes I’ll watch a movie and have a “sense” of what I liked or didn’t like, but can’t articulate it. Then I’ll read some movie critic who puts it all into the words that fully express my “feelings.” My conclusion is that I’m just not familiar enough with the words and concepts and “constructs” that give a “structure” (construct/structure) and if I were to become acquainted with this “language” of movie critiquing I would become “fluent” in it. Same for other art forms.
(That’s funny, the explanation above itself could serve as an example. :-))
If it ever happens one day that Miscavige gets Comm-Eved, I bet that he will prove that 90% of his actions are based on LRH´s Orders, Policy, Flag orders and so, on.
Imagine, while studying the new basics, I found a recommendation from LRH (on a PDC lecture), (I cannot give you the exact lecture number, but I marked the sentence yellow) on how to bring somebody into PT. And you know what he says: “Beat him”.
If its written its true and applicaple technology. Right?
And it follows that someone cannot be penalized by following LRH policy or bulletin or lecture.
Great achievement.
Thats what I meant with “roots”.
Excellent!
Now put a minus next to each number and a zero at the top.
Then write 1., 2., 3., . . . above this and put corresponding positive scale above.
oops – this is a scale of cult think. The positive side needs the correspondingly positive alternative name….
Marildi!!! (need words, please.) hahaha!
Ah, such a fun challenge! Are you looking for “dichotomies”?
nope. need antonym for cult think.
Oh, okay. Well I was in the ballpark, I think. Antonyms are words of opposite meaning and dichotomies are “opposite groups.” I thought you were looking for the opposite group for each level of cult think.
and at -7. on the scale we have “Lord of the Flies.”
So true. In my case it was the Sokka Gakkai a Japanese modern Buddhist cult. In the case of the SGI, 1 through 3 are in effect but then so is 6. I have to say that I think there are different flavors of 6. Some more opressive than others. With the SGI “forbidden” would be more “frowned upon” and it increases the further up the leadership one goes.
Seems like the name “SGI” and “Cult” has a nasty pattern of showing up after one another…lol
@ Grady Broyles. BTW SGI engages the practice all methods of behavior suppression.
“A group where critical examination of information and thinking for yourself:
1.is not encouraged – Don’t bring up any other form of Buddhism
2.is disregarded – Unless you want the “guidance of a lifetime”
3.is discouraged – Unless it’s about praising “Sensei”
4.is suppressed – They are fond of railroading and the bait and switch
5.will get you in trouble – Don’t recieve any home visits
6.is apparently encouraged but actually forbidden – Just watch what you say.
Democrats and Republicans
Levels?
Oops! Hadn’t yet had my Starbucks when I posted this morning over in Seattle.
Democrats and Republicans are perhaps at around level 3, discouragement. I’d say Fox News does a good job of discouraging Conservatives from looking at the Liberals and I’d say National Public Radio often does a good job of discouraging Liberals from looking at Fox News.
Great scale! I see it as aligned with the Tone Scale from about 2.5 at boredom, through the tones of domination down to nullification at 1.1. And like tone levels it could be applied to not only groups of every size (up to nations) but individuals too. Also like individuals and groups, there are probably acute, social and chronic levels of the scale. It could even be an added column to the Chart of Human Evaluation as one of the best “indicators” to be aware of – a very useful compass and guide to choosing friends and groups.
I’ll stick my neck out and say I think of the U.S. as at the top – chronically, though it has its “buttons” and acute and social levels too. But probably, like this scale, it could and should have higher levels above “2.5.”
On this scale, level 0 would be “devoid of cult think, free thinking encouraged”.
Perfect!
It’s interesting how the different Scientology sites range on this scale. Some Independent ones are strongly “Pro LRH” and are in the lower levels corresponding to a strict KSW viewpoint, and at the same time they consider themselves very pro-Scn philosophy too (ironically, I think). This is the age-old debate about “freedom of choice” vs. “price of freedom,” or some such wording. (I haven’t figured out the answer yet either!)
The C of S sites are at the lower levels – the unofficial ones down at 4 and 5 and the
Official ones, more politically correct, at 6.
Ha ha! I just thought about the posters on this blog and the way that many of us vary on the scale to one degree or another, as regards other posters’ comments – in general or selected comments in particular. Sometimes it’s a matter of not allowing a “fire in the theater!” type of comment (that would be the extreme), but not always. Hmmm…
6 is a gem.
Gee, I wonder where I can find a group like that?
Any suggestions?
Join any one of many college fraternities.
They will get you drunk, haze you by inflicting pain upon your person, make you chant and repeat various creeds and slogans and make you publicly humiliate yourself in various ways; all of the above amount to PDH.
Or you could just join one of the elite branches of the Armed Forces, like the Marines.
There are too many examples to detail here.
The Independent Fundamentalist Baptist are OPENLY hostile to any other Christian/religious organization. You are ONLY allowed to read the Bible (or other IFB approved books) and ONLY allowed to listen to music that does not have a rock beat (hey, where is that in the Bible?). Crimes, such as rape and impregnation of underage IFB girls are NOT reported to the authorities, instead the poor young girls are made to feel that THEY are at fault (they ‘pulled it in’?), they are then whisked away, their babies taken from them and only AFTER they have proven themselves ‘worthy’ are they allowed back in the group. Any member that takes a stand and dares to call the authorities is excommunicated from the group, instantly. This is a CULT, disguised as a loving Christian organization.
Luckily some of their upstanding (rapist) members have been convicted and imprisoned for their crimes, but the cult remains.
I would put this crazy cult at 4.0.
I’ve joined their group on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/35429320847/
Whoops, I should clarify, I joined the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Cult Survivors (and their supporters).
Republican members of Congress: 5
Democratic members of congress: 2
Years ago I was upset to find that a certain freezone group does things that you’d describe as levels 3, 4, 5, 6. And they were busy differentiating from another group ranging from 0 to 2. And therefore I’ve chosen the latter to cooperate with.
With “Scale of Cult Think” below zero, the positive (top of scale) could be “Analytical Group Think” with more advanced civilizations at the top.
But then groups don’t tend to be analytical, do they? or are their examples where they are? and why is this?
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/08/advanced-civilizations-do-not.html
How about “Innovative-thought encouragement Think”?
P.S. Or based on what Geir stated was Level 0 – “Free-thought encouragement Think.”
hahahaha!
Did I say something funny, or is that just the (*perhaps* justified) cynic in you?
This was a reply to Chris’ “hahahaha!”
marildi
2011-09-19 at 21:36
How about “Innovative-thought encouragement Think”?
funny
Indeed. The demand or expectation that one be “innovative” or “creative” or even “productive” can be an oppressive tyranny in itself. Like “publish or perish” to get or retain tenure.
Nice string of posts Valkov. Good insights as usual.
Level 6, as you call it, is likely the most insidious for the same reason that TRs, or any activity which may lead to a suggestible state can be; with TRs (or meditation or whatever), when one is in a suggestible state and then assured they are NOT in a suggestible state, it makes it that much easier. The best way to prohibit an action or activity is to either redefine it slightly, or to claim support for the overall activity but prohibit its component pieces.
Another is to have a failsafe, some teaching or “law” which cannot be refuted and is all-encompassing, and drill it into people’s heads. Most Christian sects agree that God is all-powerful, or he/she “works in mysterious ways”; if someone’s own line of thinking doesn’t line up with dogma, that’s why: because God said so. This is taken to the level of Young Earth Creationists claiming God sped up the rate of half-life decay used to date rocks and other specimens, so the results LOOK like millions of years, but they’re really not. “Good thinking, but mmmmmm…nope!”
“with TRs (or meditation or whatever)”
Or whatever?
Please explain how TRs (or meditation or whatever) puts a person in a suggestible state.
Hi Geir, The subject of TRs and suggestable states has been ongoing for many years. I know from my own experience of having sone thousands and thousands of hours of TRsover the 18 years I was a member and on the various TRs courses ( including doing blinkl;ess trs when they were mandates) has lead me to observe and believe that people become very suggestable on these drills and that seeing the reg after doing them makes for easy sales .
Here are some links to articles and sites with articles about the TRs and the relationship to suggestability, I don’t agree with everything written on these pages but the subject of TRs and the minds is a facinating one and well worth looking into for getting an objective POV.
Training routines (Scientology) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The training routines (TR) are introductory services used in the Church of Scientology[1] as well as affiliated programs Narconon, Criminon and WISE. The church describes them as a way of learning to communicate effectively and to control situations. According to investigators and former Scientologists, the training routines have a strong hypnotic effect, causing hallucinations and an out-of-body experience known as exteriorization.[2][3][4] ( read on for more)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_routines_(Scientology)
Scientology and hypnosis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Church of Scientology officially denies that it uses hypnosis as part of it’s beliefs and practices. Individuals admitting to having had hypnosis, as either a participant or practitioner, are not permitted to undergo training due to the possibility of harm caused by the prior exposure to hypnosis. Scientology has, nonetheless, been subject throughout it’s history to accusations that it covertly uses hypnosis to gain control over it’s members.7 External links
Hubbard’s experience with hypnosisScientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was known to his associates in the late 1940s as a talented hypnotist.[1] During this period, he worked in Hollywood posing as a swami.[2] The Church says that Hubbard’s experience with hypnosis led him to create Dianetics as an alternative means to solve man’s problems.[3]
Research claims of hypnosis in ScientologySome researchers believe that Scientology uses a form of what is called authoritative hypnosis. In much of his Scientology and Dianetics writings, Hubbard often redefined common words and invented new words. According to The Anderson Report, Hubbard has done this with hypnotic phenomena also. It is also believed that Hubbard has attributed spiritual significance to the results of the hypnosis. Among the terms that Hubbard has used for documented stages of unconsciousness experiences in hypnosis are:
anaten
boil-off
dope-off
mental image pictures (hypnotic hallucinations)
exteriorization (Dissociation) ….
See also Scientology Training routines (Scientology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_hypnosis
Scientology Training Routines A Critical Review by Perry Scott
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/critique.html
Scientology’s Secrets: The TRs
The TRs (Training Routines) are part of the most basic Scientology training, and are repeated to increasingly stringent standards at higher levels. They are billed as a way to improve communication skills, but their real purpose is to plant the seeds for thought control.
Chapter 1 of Bob Penny’s book Social Control in Scientology http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs.html
contains a brief analysis of how participating in the TRs serves to mold the victim’s perceptions so as to bring them further into “the group” (Scientology).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/index.html
From my experience, the TRs have been one of the parts of Scientology giving the fastest, best and most stable gains. I have seen this in a few hundred people.
I don’t remember anything in the TR’s data on being in a suggestible state.
As far as I remember, it was to ‘Be there’ and basic com cycle drills.
Whatever you were doing that put you into some suggestible state was not TR’s.- it was either misunderstoods on both your and the coach’s part, or you were coached by someone who didn’t understand the purpose.
So right Dennis. Many things about Scientology have been misunderstood and misapplied over the years. Maybe none more than TR’s. It seems improbable to me that a drill so simple in theory can be made so impossible to apply.
The reasons for this might have been well covered in LRH’s “World-Out-of-Comm-Eval” which preceded his development of “key to life” course. I never did this course but always thought it was a good idea.
Actually guys, prior to attaining the EP of OT-TR0 and TR0, any given person could pass through suggestible states of mind, like doping off or going into glee etc. as a result of the restimulation of past experiences of anaten, including past states of hypnosis the person may have experienced.
It’s all right here in the HCOBs on the TRs. And in the book CoHA LRH has at least one process that he mentions specifically, wjhich runs out hypnotism.
It is the reactive mind that makes folks susceptible to hypnosis,and that is also what makes Black Dianetics possible. Black Dianetics being, simply, using the know-how to restimulate people without flattening the process to F/N, VGIs, EP, etc.
There are several first-person accounts on Marty’s by posters who were subjected to this by Flag “auditors” in apparent attempts to make them suicidal. The ones who survived are lucky, as it is quite possible there were others who did not.
So actually Mafiawog is right in that suggestible states can occur in the process of auditing, which includes TRs. However they are not the end result being sought. (Except by a few who might be considered criminally inclined, and probably are in other ways, too.)
However that is not the intent of auditing or TRs, to induce these states; it is in fact the opposite of the intent, which is to get the person through these states should they occur, so he can become less suggestible, not more.
It is a serious crime against the Auditor’s Code to leave any process unflat in this way, so as to leave a person in such a suggestible state.
Anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignorant of the actual codes and original intent of scientology. IMNSHO.
Valkov, good post! Like you, I’ve also noticed that so much of the criticism of Scientology comes from not fully understanding it. That and the fact that they don’t differentiate between what has been or is being practiced and what the materials actually state.
Mafiawog, there is in fact no way to disprove the contention that an omnipotent God could have created you, the world, and everyone in it 5 minutes ago, complete with a fossil record, all your lifetime of memories,etc.
That’s the cool thing about the concept of “omnipotence”, which literally means capable of doing anything. Of course what they don’t like to be reminded of, is that “anything” literally means “anything” – including great evil.
“The lonely undertaker blows a futile horn” – Bob Dylan
Geir, We seem to be exhibiting synchronicity again!
I am in the midst of a series of articles on stable datums and your list of 6 attitudes represent the stable datums that define these different groups. I am going to take a flyer here and suggest some groups I have observed in life:
Critical examination of information and thinking for yourself:
1. is not encouraged in the well-adjusted typical American family
2. is disregarded in the authoritarian family and in many workplaces.
3. is discouraged in most large corporations. Following established procedures and not making waves is more important than brilliant innovation.
4. is suppressed in organizations that are struggling to survive. Obedience to orders is deemed necessary. Management is fighting to maintain control and thinking for yourself creates randomity that threatens that illusion of control.
5. will get you in trouble in organizations that fear change. Innovation is viewed as a threat to established actions that are deemed critical to survival. Legacy products and cash cow activities are defended vigorously against new ideas. Innovators and free thinkers are punished with demotions and firing.
6. is apparently encouraged but actually forbidden in organizations that are so low on the tone scale they manage covertly rather than overtly. Some small businesses I have encountered exhibit this behavior and larger businesses in the last stages of life that have actually given up the ghost but have not told employees. In my opinion Sun Microsystems exhibited this behavior in the years preceding its acquisition by Oracle.
I feel the Church of Scientology exhibited 1 and 2 in the Fifties and Sixties. It started exhibiting 3, 4, and 5 in the Late Sixties and up to present time.
I feel that certain areas of the Independent Field exhibit 1, 2, and 3. You can verify this for yourself by reading the popular blogs. In many of them you are free to discuss only a limited range of subjects or you will be censured or heckled. These subjects may range from how bad Ron was and how ineffectual the tech is to the other extreme of the Tech always works, Ron’s words are sacred gospel and the evil started with David Miscavige.
There are some areas of the Independent Field, and I consider this to be one of them, where any questions can be asked and no stone is left unturned in the search for answers. These areas do not fall within the six categories described above and change is occurring rapidly.
Thank you for hosting this thread.
David St Lawrence
oldauditor@possiblyhelpfuladvice.com
This is an excellent contribution. Spot on.
I will add that I see the CoS being on level 5 toward its own parishioners but is on level 6 in the media and in it’s PR activities.
I agree.
David, you maybe interested in Ken Wilbur’s work. Back in the 1970s, he published his groundbreaking book about Consciousness, in which he first outlined a synthesis of Eastern and Western developmental psychologies, and showed how personal individual psychology as studied in the West, could be aligned with the “transpersonal” aspirations of the Eastern approaches to human development. The scale he proposed then had 10 levels of development of an individual the last 3 or 4 being the “transpersonal” levels.
The particular observation I recall is that he saw Western society as tending to drive a person to achieving the 5th level of personal development and keeping him there – that is, preventing him from backsliding to lower levels of development, but also discouraging or preventing him from ascending to the higher levels of transpersonal personal development.
Lots of results on Google for Ken Wilbur.
I have experienced different university subjects (science) fall under category 1. Where you are encouraged to search in literature and well documented studies instead of thinking for yourself. The study of other people’s studies. Maybe they just think there’s nothing more to the subject to find out?
There are actually educators at all levels of schooling who have made the same point you are making and do encourage original thinking, taking second-had data and thinking with it or building onto it. I’m not well informed enough to name them or what their probably small percentage might be, but I know they do exist. Also, LRH makes this point thoroughly in the study tapes for one place – as regards students just being at effect point in their education and being brought to apathy as a result.
Excellent article, Geir. Here are some examples
New England Institute of Religious Research
Short List of “Cults”, Aberrational Christian, and Other Controversial Groups
The following list is our ongoing project of providing resources for dealing with controversial groups and individuals. It is perpetually under construction, as one might imagine.
A
Activated Ministries (See The Family of Love)
Alamo Christian Foundation
Ananda Maya Yoga
Armstrongism
Anthroposophical Society (Rudolph Steiner)
Aryan Nation- Christian Identity Movement
Christian Identity Movement/ Aryan Nation
Assemblies of Yahweh –
Association for Research and Enlightenment (Edgar Cayce)
Atherius Society (UFO cult)
Attleboro Sect (aka The Body)
Aurora Productions (See The Family of Love)
B
Baha’i
Body, The – (aka The Attleboro Sect)
A Brief History of “The Body” aka the Attleboro Group
Another Death Attributed to “Born in Zion” teaching
Defendants and Judge work on a compromise
Corneau may have had another baby
Boston Movement –
C
Children of God ( aka the Family of Love)
Christadelphianism –
Christian Identity Movement- See Aryan National Alliance
Christian Identity Movement/ Aryan Nation
Christian Science
Church of Bible Understanding – .
Church of the Living Word (The Walk) – What Jesus is, we become.
Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgianism)
Church of Satan (Anton Lavey)
Church Universal and Triumphant (Elizabeth Clare Prophet)
Course in Miracles, A
A Course In Miracles: Spirituality or Spiritism?
New Manuscript Discovered
Cult Awareness Network (now an instrument of Scientology)
D
E
Eckankar (Paul Twitchell)
Emissaries of Divine Light
EST (The Forum)
F
Faith Assembly – Hobart Freeman
Family of Love (Children of God)
Forum, The (EST)
Foundation Church of the Millennium
Freemasonry
G
Gnosticism
The Gospel of Judas- The Facts and the Fraud
Greater Grace World Outreach – Carl Stevens
H
Hare Krishnas (International Society for Krishna Conciousness)
NEWS: ISKCON Near Bankruptcy
Holy Order of MANS, The – (Earl Blighton)
I
J
Jehovah’s Witnesses
K
King James Onlyism
Are KJV Onlyers Christian?
L
Lavey, Anton (Church of Satan)
Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement –
Local Church, The – (Witness Lee)
M
Megiddo Mission –
Messianic Communities (aka Twelve Tribes, Island Pond, Vermont, Northeast Kingdom Community Church) – .
Twelve Tribes Index
Mormonism – .
Difficulties in the Book of Mormon
Informer Article Profiling Mormonism
The Book of Abraham (Another book allegedly translated by Smith…however, unlike the Book of Mormon, the original text exists today. )
Deification, Mormonism, and the Early Church
N
Narcisstic Personality Disorder
Nation of Islam- News Story from Conservative News.US “Farrahkan’s Million Man Math”
New Age Movement, The
The New Age Movement Defined
New Thought Movement – .
No-Name Fellowship (Champaign/Urbana Ministries)
O
P
Peace Mission Movement – The leader claimed to be God and the Holy Spirit.
Phelps, Fred (Westboro Baptist Church)
Potter’s House
Q
R
Raelians
Restorationism
River of Life Ministries
Rosicrucianism
S
Satanism
Scientology
Self-Realization Fellowship (Paramahansa Yogananda)
Set Free Christian Ministries
Spiritism
Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship (Arthur Ford)
Summit Lighthouse (aka Church Universal and Triumphant)
Swedenborgianism (Church of New Jerusalem)
T
Theosophic Society, The
Theosophy: Madame Blavatsky
Two by Twos (aka Church with no Name, Go-Preachers, Cooneyites)
U
Unification Church (Moonies)
United Church of Religious Science, The
United Pentecostal Church – (see “At a Glance Chart”)
Unity School of Christianity – Jesus was a perfect man indwelt by the Christ Consciousness present in every person.
University Bible Fellowship
V
Victory Chapel (Potter’s House, Open Door)
W
Way International, The
Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps)
White Revolution
Wicca
Word of Faith Movement
http://neirr.org/ncultlst.html
One can read more on the characteristics of a cult by visiting this link
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
don’t forget the good side of the scale! 🙂
Or that would be another scale; The Scale of Free Think 🙂
really? another scale – not the other end of this one?
There are many references in Scientology to “group think.” It is always made analogous to the reactive mind also “the bank.” This discussion of “cult think” seems similar to a discussion of “group think.”
Would you make this link as I have and would you group “cult think” as a subset?
I have witnessed groups where free think reigns…
This is interesting because it strikes at the heart of the LRH premise that groups cannot achieve higher think than identification of A=A=A.
What is an example of a high form of “committee think?”
The larger construction projects of man such as large buildings and the space program, required groups to overcome the challenges. Yet the argument can be made that the goals have all been set by individuals. Examples such as the Taj Majal, Roosevelt Dam, and the Apollo space program by John Kennedy.
Groups have goals, this is certain. It is not immediately clear to me whether groups have initial or primary goal setting thoughts in opposition to LRH’s assertions about “group think.” Or could he have been only referring to “cult think” as the subject of the OP?
I am currently involved in a group where goals are formed and free thinking reigns.