Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, helix said:

Ugh, this canard again.

Steve Hassan simply created his own formula to define a pejorative to sell books.  He created the equivalent of a checklist to describe "jerks".  He deliberately avoided peer-review because he's only interested in writing books.  His checklist is so vague and expansive that it can easily include graduate school programs, high school sports, and military programs.  And he forgot to include mechanisms to indicate what does not count.

Your argument can be a fine one, but Steve Hassan is not the authoritative source you want backing you up.

Well he is only recognized as one of the foremost experts on mind control and cult like behavior.  Have you read any of his books?   Maybe it strikes to close to home.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Teancum

[helix]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well he is only recognized as one of the foremost experts on mind control and cult like behavior.  Have you read any of his books?   Maybe it strikes to close to home.

🙄

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, helix said:

Ugh, this canard again.

Steve Hassan simply created his own formula to define a pejorative to sell books.  He created the equivalent of a checklist to describe "jerks".  He deliberately avoided peer-review because he's only interested in writing books.  His checklist is so vague and expansive that it can easily include graduate school programs, high school sports, and military programs.  And he forgot to include mechanisms to indicate what does not count.

Your argument can be a fine one, but Steve Hassan is not the authoritative source you want backing you up.

http://www.pipatl.org/cv/Hassan_CV_200603.pdf

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

🙄

Yea I know.  I used to be like you.

[helix]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

http://www.pipatl.org/cv/Hassan_CV_200603.pdf

As I said, his checklist isn't peer-reviewed.  That he appears on CNN often doesn't make him an expert. 

Academics in his field stay far clear of trying to define that pejorative.  I suspect if he ever tried to have others critique his work, they would rightly point out his checklist is useless due to a combination of being overly broad, nebulous, and unrestrictive.  His checklist frankly has the same characteristics as astrology, where if you squint just right you can apply it to anything. 

As I said before, your prior argument where you cited Hassan may not be a bad argument.  But you should avoid a pop-culture book writer and TV show guest and instead focus on someone with academic weight.

Edited April 25, 2021 by helix

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

 Sorry no I  don't respect you telling me to knock it off. I could give you dozens of cases where members on the fringe or going faith transitions and may be public about it are hauled in to be reprimanded and even had the now cuddly so called Membership Council due to members who know them following their social media activity and that member blowing them into their bishop or SP.  Like it or not that is a form of stalking. Sorry. 

No, it isn't.  And yes, you should knock off using words irresponsibly by attempting to apply them to situations where they do not remotely fit.  And I don't give a damn if you "respect" my saying so or not.

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

http://www.pipatl.org/cv/Hassan_CV_200603.pdf

Congratulations.  You've learned how to post a CV to the Web!  Forgive us if we don't genuflect at him, or at you.

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, helix said:

As I said, his checklist isn't peer-reviewed.  That he appears on CNN often doesn't make him an expert. 

Academics in his field stay far clear of trying to define that pejorative.  I suspect if he ever tried to have others critique his work, they would rightly point out his checklist is useless due to a combination of being overly broad, nebulous, and unrestrictive.  His checklist frankly has the same characteristics as astrology, where if you squint just right you can apply it to anything. 

As I said before, your prior argument where you cited Hassan may not be a bad argument.  But you should avoid a pop-culture book writer and TV show guest and instead focus on someone with academic weight.

I disagree.  I find his writings and positions compelling and fairly spot on. One just need to look at the lists and you can see the attributes all over full blown cults as well as organizations that have attributes of mind control.  I am not saying the LDS Church is a full blown cult but it is to the right on the bell curve on control.  I am sure we won't agree on this.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Congratulations.  You've learned how to post a CV to the Web!  Forgive us if we don't genuflect at him, or at you.

Helix criticize his work so I posted his CV. If sarcasm helps you feel better I am happy for you. 

Have you read anything by Hassan?

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Helix criticize his work so I posted his CV. If sarcasm helps you feel better I am happy for you. 

Have you read anything by Hassan?

I won't answer anything else you post unless and until you acknowledge your completely inappropriate use of the word stalking.  Have a nice day (life?)

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I disagree.  I find his writings and positions compelling and fairly spot on. One just need to look at the lists and you can see the attributes all over full blown cults as well as organizations that have attributes of mind control.  I am not saying the LDS Church is a full blown cult but it is to the write on the bell curve on control.  I am sure we won't agree on this.

To the write?  Oh, noes!  We're to the write on the bell curve!  Dang!    What to do, what to do???

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I won't answer anything else you post unless and until you acknowledge your completely inappropriate use of the word stalking.  Have a nice day (life?)

I already did. I acknowledge it as such again.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To the write?  Oh, noes!  We're to the write on the bell curve!  Dang!    What to do, what to do???

And you never make a typo?  Typo corrected.  I guess it keeps you safe to belittle.  You seem pretty good at that.  Insecure a bit I guess.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not have one particular book. I have seen comments in other broader based books.  I am not an expert on this. I was just surprised on some of what I  read along the way. Mostly in a couple of Bart Ehrman books.  It did not seem they were the devils the NT makes them out to be.

Bart Ehrman has some good stuff, most of which I haven't read.  He does have his biases, which isn't really an issue as long as the reader recognizes them. 

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bart Ehrman has some good stuff, most of which I haven't read.  He does have his biases, which isn't really an issue as long as the reader recognizes them. 

Agreed.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well he is only recognized as one of the foremost experts on mind control and cult like behavior.  Have you read any of his books?   Maybe it strikes to close to home.

"Recognized as one of the foremost experts..."  I note the passive voice here.  Recongized by whom, may I ask?  If recognition as an "expert" is just a popularity contest, then that doesn't mean much.

One pretty decent way to test the the bone fides of a self-appointed "expert" in a particular field is to examine whether he has ever been qualified as an "expert witness" in a federal or state court proceeding.  In federal courts, a person's background and experience in the field is scrutinized prior to the trial or hearing to see if the court will allow expert testimony.  The general framework for this scrutiny is set forth in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Quote

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

By way of example, consider Richard Ofshe:

Quote

Richard Jason Ofshe (b.27 February 1941) is an American sociologist and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the advisory board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation advocacy organization and is known for his expert testimony relating to coercion in small groups, confessions, and interrogations.

Ofshe lists his areas of interest to be coercive social control, social psychology, influence in police interrogation, and influence leading to pseudo-memory in psychotherapy.

Ofshe has been characterized as a "world-renowned expert on influence interrogation". He believes that coerced confessional testimony is extremely unreliable and stated in a 1993 Time article that "Recovered memory therapy will come to be recognized as the quackery of the 20th century." In a more recent Time Magazine article in 2005, Ofshe is quoted as saying that false testimony does not just occur through coercion, but may also occur in instances of "exhaustion or mental impairment." However, he also stated that it is only recently that juries have been allowed to hear expert testimony about these kinds of theories.

His credentials seem pretty decent:

Quote

Education

• Queens College of the City University of New York, B.A., psychology
• Queens College of the City University of New York, M.A., sociology
• Stanford University, Ph.D., sociology, sub-specializing in social psychology

Honors

Ofshe has received several honors and recognition for his research and writings:

• John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellow, 1973-1974
• Recipient of Roy Dorcus Award for the Best Paper on Clinical Hypnosis of 1994. Awarded by the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis for "Recovered Memory Therapy and Robust Repression: Influence and Pseudomemories."

The Point Reyes Light Newspaper received the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1979, a newspaper that Ofshe worked for during that time, but his resume and other sources attribute the award to Ofshe and the other writer of the Synanon piece, including the New York Times, Salon.com, Psychology Today, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and other publications.

Professional memberships

• American Sociological Association
• American Psychological Association
• American Psychological Society
• Sociological Practice Association
• Pacific Sociological Association

Per this article, "Ofshe, who holds a doctorate in sociology, is a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and has testified as an expert on police interrogation in 370 state, federal and military courts in at least 36 states."

Here is Hassan's CV (as of October 2019).  He has a 1985 master's degree in counseling psychology, and is (or until recently, was) pursuing a PhD in "Organizational Development and Change." He also lists his licensure and certifications, his "additional professional training," "honors and awards," "selected professional activities," "selected publications," "selected professional presentations," "selected published interviews," "selected citations," "selected appearances {in media}" and "professional memberships and affiliations." 

Notably, he identifies himself in the "Summary" section as having done "expert witness work," but he does not identify any cases in which he has testified.  Not one.  

So, has Steven Hassan ever been able to persuade a judge that he is an "expert?"  Apparently not.  From this October 2020 article:

Quote

Steve Hassan is a member of a forensic think tank, The Program in Psychiatry and the Law, established by Harvard Medical School psychiatrists Thomas Gutheil and Harold Bursztajn and writer Archie Brodsky back in the 1980s. Hassan has been mentored by this prestigious group who encouraged Hassan to do doctoral research and become an expert witness. 

If they are encouraging him "to become an expert witness," I think we can infer that he has not previously been one.  See also here:

Quote

In March of 1996, in the case of Kendall v. Kendall, the United States District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts declined to quality Hassan as an expert witness. Hassan’s disclosure in this one and only attempt shows that he was charging $200 per hour for preparation and $1,500 per day for his “expert testimony” on new religions, yet he had never testified in court before and his only qualification was a a degree in counseling from Cambridge College, a school that accepts life experience as a substitute for coursework. In March of 1996, in the case of Kendall v. Kendall, the United States District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also rejected Hassan as an expert witness. Hassan’s disclosure in this case shows that he was charging $200 per hour for preparation and $1,500 per day for his “expert testimony” on new religions, yet he had never testified in court before. Nor could show that he deserved such an exorbitant fee.

A fairly comprehensive critique of Hassan is available here (from a 2012 review by Cathleen A. Mann, PhD of one of Hassan's self-published books) (emphases added) :

Quote

Steven Hassan’s latest book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs, just released in summer, 2012, is the latest in what can be seen as a trilogy of sorts, starting with Combatting Mind Control in 1988 and then Releasing the Bonds in 2000.  A large portion of the material in his latest book is a verbatim repetition of material from Releasing the Bonds. In his most recent book, Hassan reports that his sister was the impetus to changing his “approach” in interaction away from interventions, an activity that Hassan has been involved in for over 30 years.  In the preface to this book, Hassan repeats the story of his introduction to and his exit from the Unification Church (Moonies) and how that exit helped him find his life work of education and liberation from “mind control cults”. 
...
It seems to me that Hassan’s purpose at conflating cult numbers is to frighten people and provide him with a marketing tool to sell books, rather than genuinely seeing so many groups and/or relationships as somehow being “cult-like”. He certainly hasn’t proven otherwise in this book.
...
Steve Hassan’s Twitter handle also can be seen as an interesting example of his problem with defining terms and labels. His Twitter handle is “cult expert”. Being qualified and accepted in a court of law as an expert is typically meaningful proof of expertise. But Mr. Hassan has never provided expert testimony in a court of law.  What authority then, outside of Hassan himself, has officially recognized him as an expert concerning cults? For that matter has an authority officially recognized Hassan as an expert in anything? 

Steve Hassan’s latest book, just like the one before it, is self-published.  If Mr. Hassan were in fact “the #1 exit counselor,” surely he could find a publisher.  Having a publisher would bring in the much needed contribution of objective professional editing, and perhaps a peer review process, which might have made this a better and more credible book.

Starting with page 6, Hassan describes what he calls “common cult scenarios”.  These accounts may be the factual descriptions of actual cases or composites, but they read like the most sensational scenarios.  Hassan repeatedly places himself at the center of these brief case examples. He is the hero. He never fails to come up with just the right thing to say to successfully get through to a cult member.  Once again this fits a familiar pattern. Just like Hassan’s statement about the rise of cults, these scenarios appear self-serving and seem designed to elevate Mr. Hassan to a pedestal. Apparently, he is the one that can snap people out of a cult with just one or two artful remarks. He thus sets himself up as the ultimate authority on what to say and when to say it.  There is no mention of similarly artful things, which family members can say, even though the supposed purpose of this book is “helping loved ones” out of cults.  The definition of cult put forth by Mr. Hassan could be applied to many groups. He offers insufficient distinctions between what he considers a cult and what might be considered an ordinary group.  The message in this book seems to be that Steve Hassan has somehow become the final arbiter who will define such things for everyone.

Borrowing ideas

In Chapter 2, Hassan introduces Lifton’s eight criteria or psychological themes for thought reform, another term used to define “mind control,” even though Lifton never used the words mind control in his work.  Hassan also introduces Singer’s 6 criteria and brings in the social psychology construct of cognitive dissonance.  Even though Hassan names the origins of these ideas, nowhere in the body of his book within any chapter does he include properly cited references. In fact, the reader is told near the end of the book that a bibliography is not available, but rather can be found at Hassan’s Web site.  This is certainly not in keeping with any protocol of academic writing and seems like a device to minimize as much as possible the owners of the ideas that Hassan claims as his.  Not including such text references when you have depended upon the ideas of others might be considered something akin to plagiarism. 

This penchant that Steve Hassan has for borrowing upon the ideas of others without specifically cited attribution should be glaringly apparent to anyone familiar with Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP). According to Mr. Hassan’s first book Combatting Cult Mind Control; he has studied NLP extensively with its founders. He has also described how NLP and the writings of its predecessors influenced the development of his own cult intervention model. In Hassan’s latest book (p. 208-214) he discusses concepts and techniques that come from NLP such as Visual Kinesthetic Dissociation and the idea of representational systems. But he fails to cite their source. Hassan makes no mention of NLP whatsoever, nevertheless borrowing from it quite heavily. This is especially troubling, given that NLP remains highly controversial amongst people that study cults, particularly because it can be seen as a manipulative technique of persuasion. NLP also poses an ethical dilemma when used within the context of cult intervention work. The integrity of an intervention and for that matter the interventionist is compromised by the use of such deliberately deceptive techniques and manipulation.

 BITE model

On page 23, Hassan introduces what he describes as the powerful BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional control) model, something that he seems to see as a superior definition of the manipulation involved within cults.  Much of the BITE model is borrowed material from a 30 year long tradition of social psychological research.  In reading the elements of the BITE model within Hassan’s current book, that model has now been greatly expanded from his previous two books. The BITE model he now proposes is so broad that it could be applied a very wide array of groups.  What is troubling is that Hassan has not provided any guidelines to separate out the groups, which might warrant the cult label and those that do not.  The BITE model, as now applied by Hassan, has become a kind of philosophic construct not grounded in facts, but rather theories, many of them borrowed from others.

Hassanology

This composite philosophical approach as now devised by Mr. Hassan might be called “Hassanology”. In the world of cults Hassanology essentially depicts Steve Hassan as the ultimate savior. He is a hammer, and there is an ever expanding list of groups to be seen as nails. As they say, “When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail”. Of course this might once again simply reflect a convenient marketing strategy.

Hassan, repeating themes from his previous two books, introduces on page 52, this idea of dual identities, i.e. a pre-cult identity and a cult identity.  There is no evidence of a cult identity v. a pre-cult identity.  It is not even established that human behavior works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counseling.  These claims exist entirely within the confines “Hassanology”.  Again, the tone of Mr. Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas. 

Another troubling claim is that Hassan believes that all cult members suffer from phobias (p.56).  Again, Hassan presents his idea as an absolute truth, ignoring the fact that there is no scientific theory and/or scientific evidence to back it up.  Hassan seems to think that his ideas on phobias mesh with his claim that all cults practice hypnosis. He doesn’t acknowledge any exceptions. According to Mr. Hassan all cults do these things.  It is true that many cults teach members that leaving the group is wrong or bad, but where are the scientific studies that conclusively demonstrate that this practice constitutes phobia indoctrination?
...
Conclusion

In my opinion proper distinctions are not sufficiently made regarding what are actually Hassan’s purported ideas and the ideas he has copied from others, which have not been given proper attribution.  And providing a general bibliography on a Web site simply does not meet either the academic criteria or ethical responsibility regarding meaningful attribution. Although Hassan is obviously not bound by such academic codes of honor, borrowing the ideas of others without citing them has frequently resulted in the expulsion of students from graduate school programs. No reputable academic journal would accept or countenance such omissions.  Has Hassan fallen into an academic trap? Does he believe that what he learned from others years ago has somehow now been transformed into his own ideas? Is he somehow convinced that he now owns those ideas?  The citation of sources is always an academic requirement and should be an author’s ethical responsibility, regardless of how long ago someone might have been introduced to the material.

Mr. Hassan’s latest book gives the impression that he sees his methodology as the only way, but there is a woeful lack of objective evidence to prove his theories.  It’s curious that Hassan includes pages on how to battle his critics.  Isn’t it possible that other ideas might be valid?  At the very least, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Or has Hassanology become an “absolute science”? 

Dr. Mann "has a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994," has "done research regarding cult formation and the recruiting and retention practices of high demand group" and "has been court qualified as an expert in 12 states."

Just some food for thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2021 by smac97

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well he is only recognized as one of the foremost experts on mind control and cult like behavior.  Have you read any of his books?   Maybe it strikes to close to home.

A major problem for those who think the Latter-Day Saints are a mind control cult is that the New Testament Church, as clearly set forth in the Bible, meets all the exact same criteria for a so-called cult in every respect — IN SPADES! This leads to an obvious question: Do you also have a beef with the New Testament Church because it’s the foremost example of a “mind control cult?”

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A major problem for those who think the Latter-Day Saints are a mind control cult is that the New Testament Church, as clearly set forth in the Bible, meets all the exact same criteria for a so-called cult in every respect — IN SPADES! This leads to an obvious question: Do you also have a beef with the New Testament Church because it’s the foremost example of a “mind control cult?”

I'm not Teancum, so hope you don't mind my answer. I'll say as far as the New Testament is translated correctly, I don't have a beef.

[Kenngo1969]

It figures.  Doctor Hassan probably is about as much of an expert on cults as Rick Ross.   @Teancum, perhaps you should consider whether, when one is reduced to playing qualification poker regarding so called "experts," that might not be good evidence that someone has lost the debate already.  And while publication in scholarly fora certainly is not a sin qua non for quality or reliability (witness the several papers generated by artificial intelligence that have been accepted for publication in such fora), perhaps self-publication, by contrast, is a pretty decent red flag that if there were much reason to trust a so-called academic's claims, he wouldn't have to resort to publishing them himself.

P.S.: And what should pop up when I click on one of the links above provided by Smac97 containing a review of one of Dr. Hassan's books?  Why, an ad for a book by Rick Ross, of course!    Does this mean I've been Rick Rolled?!

Edited April 26, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[ttribe]

For those expecting a response from Teancum, I am told he was removed from the thread, although I have no idea why.

[Fair Dinkum]

Am I the only one that is disturbed that the church has representatives, oft times members of a stake or ward or from the Strengthening the Church Members Committee,  monitoring social media post of its member's and then using those posts as a weapon to beat the member into conformity and submission or face a church court?

Edited April 26, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

nvm

Edited April 26, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Am I the only one that is disturbed that the church has representatives, oft times members of a stake or ward or from the Strengthening the Church Members Committee,  monitoring social media post of its member's and then using those posts as a weapon to beat the member into conformity and submission or face a church court?

Are they monitoring the posts or are they friends and/or family that see the posts and then sometimes report concerns?  Because those are two very different things in my view.

[Fair Dinkum]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are they monitoring the posts or are they friends and/or family that see the posts and then sometimes report concerns?  Because those are two very different things in my view.

I've heard of both scenarios.  I find either disturbing

Edited April 26, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've heard of both scenarios.  I find either disturbing

You've heard people say that they were asked to monitor other members' accounts?

(asking for the sake of clarity.)