Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Rain]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think when he was little, he thought the song meant that it happened in a city that did not have walls. When he got older, he realized that it meant outside of a city. And that experience has taught him that sometimes the obvious meaning to us Isn’t actually what the speaker means, and sometimes the obvious interpretation to us is not obvious to others who interpret it differently.

And as such, he has a lot more grace for people understanding things (or saying things) in a different way than he does/would or coming to a different conclusion than he did.

At least that’s how I understood him. Maybe I am the one that’s confused. 😆

I never thought about it, but having written lots of poetry I can see it meaning something.. or it could just be a way to rhyme with "all".  Who knows.  I'm glad let's roll gets something out of it though. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I never thought about it, but having written lots of poetry I can see it meaning something.. or it could just be a way to rhyme with "all".  Who knows.  I'm glad let's roll gets something out of it though. 

Completely off topic, but this seems to be the one chance I have to gripe about a problem I've had with this particular hymn.  Just a small nitpick, but it has bothered me for YEARS.  And I've never said anything about it to anyone.  Until now.

To wit: "He Only" is not the same as "Only He."  In the third verse, the lyrics read "He only could unlock the gate" which means that unlocking the gate was the only thing he could do.  The lyric SHOULD read "Only he could unlock the gate" which would mean that he was the only one who could unlock the gate.  I get it; it doesn't scan as well in my version.  But it still BUGS ME.  

Rant over.  Please continue with your on-topic discussions.

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Completely off topic, but this seems to be the one chance I have to gripe about a problem I've had with this particular hymn.  Just a small nitpick, but it has bothered me for YEARS.  And I've never said anything about it to anyone.  Until now.

To wit: "He Only" is not the same as "Only He."  In the third verse, the lyrics read "He only could unlock the gate" which means that unlocking the gate was the only thing he could do.  The lyric SHOULD read "Only he could unlock the gate" which would mean that he was the only one who could unlock the gate.  I get it; it doesn't scan as well in my version.  But it still BUGS ME.  

Rant over.  Please continue with your on-topic discussions.

You are right on word meaning.  Poetically it doesn't work well to do "only he", but in a hymn, meaning should be first over poetics..

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think when he was little, he thought the song meant that it happened in a city that did not have walls. When he got older, he realized that it meant outside of a city. And that experience has taught him that sometimes the obvious meaning to us Isn’t actually what the speaker means, and sometimes the obvious interpretation to us is not obvious to others who interpret it differently.

And as such, he has a lot more grace for people understanding things (or saying things) in a different way than he does/would or coming to a different conclusion than he did.

At least that’s how I understood him. Maybe I am the one that’s confused. 😆

I see. I was looking for something more deep and meaningful in his insight, like maybe the hill didn’t have a wall because that allowed everyone access to Jesus’ grace, or something.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Reynolds can speak for himself, of course, but the way I understood him, when he talks about “manipulation” he’s talking about using guilt and fear to make people believe things that they wouldn’t believe if those tactics weren’t used. In the vast majority of cases, people’s religious beliefs are driven by sociology more than an open-minded and rational examination of the evidence. That explains why most practicing members were born and raised in the Church, and why in the overwhelming majority of cases converts cease believing if they aren’t socially integrated into the local congregation. It’s why “he was converted to the missionary and not to the gospel” is a thing.

I suspect Reynolds would find some truth in what Richard Dawkins said: 

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm glad you feel it worked out to you. It’s your life, but from my perspective, the whole thing is an imaginary solution to a made-up problem and a massive waste of time feeling guilt over something you were manipulated to feel guilty about.

And yet, as I said, my experience during that year was one of growth and love.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I see. I was looking for something more deep and meaningful in his insight, like maybe the hill didn’t have a wall because that allowed everyone access to Jesus’ grace, or something.

It sounds like the experience has been very deep and meaningful to him, but on a different topic than you thought he was speaking on.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Reynolds can speak for himself, of course, but the way I understood him, when he talks about “manipulation” he’s talking about using guilt and fear to make people believe things that they wouldn’t believe if those tactics weren’t used. In the vast majority of cases, people’s religious beliefs are driven by sociology more than an open-minded and rational examination of the evidence. That explains why most practicing members were born and raised in the Church, and why in the overwhelming majority of cases converts cease believing if they aren’t socially integrated into the local congregation. It’s why “he was converted to the missionary and not to the gospel” is a thing.

I suspect Reynolds would find some truth in what Richard Dawkins said: 

 

I can see your point and it could have been Reynold's point as well, but I respectfully disagree and would still consider his use to be a biased misuse of the term.

It's not about making someone believe something they otherwise wouldn't believe by focusing on the negative consequences that makes something manipulation.  It's doing it in a deceitful or unscrupulous way that makes it manipulation.

If you don't really believe something is dangerous, but you tell people it is so they will do what you want, then you are attempting to manipulate them.  If you really sincerely believe something is dangerous and you tell them to protect them from a negative consequence that's called educating/parenting/teaching/sharing beliefs (depending on the context of the conversation) in our culture.

Otherwise, every PSA about the dangers of drug abuse or riding a motorcycle without a helmet would be manipulation and every parent that told their teenager about some kid who ended up paralyzed from diving into the shallow end of a pool is just using fear to manipulate them into not doing something they would otherwise do.  But those things aren't considered manipulation because there is nothing immoral or deceitful about sharing that information to produce a desired response.

I also disagree that manipulation has anything to do with retention issues, because again, it's not immoral or dishonest to share sincere beliefs with others, including beliefs in negative or harmful consequences to come with certain choices.

[JAHS]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see your point and it could have been Reynold's point as well, but I respectfully disagree and would still consider his use to be a biased misuse of the term.

It's not about making someone believe something they otherwise wouldn't believe by focusing on the negative consequences that makes something manipulation.  It's doing it in a deceitful or unscrupulous way that makes it manipulation.

If you don't really believe something is dangerous, but you tell people it is so they will do what you want, then you are attempting to manipulate them.  If you really sincerely believe something is dangerous and you tell them to protect them from a negative consequence that's called educating/parenting/teaching/sharing beliefs (depending on the context of the conversation) in our culture.

Otherwise, every PSA about the dangers of drug abuse or riding a motorcycle without a helmet would be manipulation and every parent that told their teenager about some kid who ended up paralyzed from diving into the shallow end of a pool is just using fear to manipulate them into not doing something they would otherwise do.  But those things aren't considered manipulation because there is nothing immoral or deceitful about sharing that information to produce a desired response.

I also disagree that manipulation has anything to do with retention issues, because again, it's not immoral or dishonest to share sincere beliefs with others, including beliefs in negative or harmful consequences to come with certain choices.

I like this clip from the Andy Griffith show and his philosophy about raising kids:

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I like this clip from the Andy Griffith show and his philosophy about raising kids:

"Why not let him decide?"

"Now I'm afraid it don't work that way!  You can't let a young'un decide for himself.  He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it.  Then when he finds out there's a hook in it, it's too late.  Wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter, it's hard to convince 'em that other things might be better in the long run.  And all a parent can do, is say 'Wait.  Trust me.' And try to keep temptation away."

I'm a fan of this philosophy as well.  So was my dad - who saw the Mormons sinking their hooks into me at a young age, and worried mightily about negative consequences to my life and character should they be successful.  But he also knew he lived in Salt Lake City, the very heart of Zion, and could not hope to shelter me fully from their influence.  He did not fight to exclude me from church or LDS Boy Scouts or LDS friends.  And now look at me.  

When the gender-affirming-healthcare-for-trans-youth-supporting folks talk about how to parent, they usually do not express fondness over this philosophy.  I was once viewed with suspicion and asked to explain myself, when I said I wouldn't be taking my young teen daughter to a drag show.  

Parents from all sides, who care about what their children are being taught, will often spend energy to draw a healthy line between sheltering them from harmful things, and exposing them to the world's differences and diversities.  My wife and I were big on age-appropriate information about everything.  On the topic of gender/orientation issues, my wife told this story:

--------------------
My wife was in high school in the early-mid '90's, in happy sheltered straight Mormon Salt Lake City. She was in the bathroom one day, and heard crying from one of the stalls.  She looked to see if she could help, and discovered a person utterly failing to do something with flexible bandages.  There wasn't even a word for it in the '90's, but the person was trying to do chest binding - flattening the chest to better present as male/reduce the stresses and pains from gender dysphoria.  Utterly failing at it.  As in raw, red, almost bloody marks, and a bunch of wadded up ace bandages, and a bunch of tears.  This person wasn't "grabbing at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it", nobody knew anything about trans issues back then.  It was the age of beating up gay kids, the acronym was still unknown, and the "T" was a few years away from being added.  Again, Happy Sheltered Mormonburg.  This person was clawing desperately for some sort of coping mechanism, without support, without resources, without even a full understanding of what was happening.  And failing.  They talked a bit.  My wife did a little consoling and comforting.  She heard about the bullying.  Person had tried to sneak into the boys room and got roughed up - that's where the bandages got yanked so hard as to leave red marks.    

Our children demanded to know what my wife did.  Well, going to the adults wasn't really an option back then.  In my wife's teen perspective, they'd just focus on a girl going into the boys room, and not see an inch further.  But she found out who the boys in the bathroom were, and apparently she knew how to grab random football players in the halls and get them to do things for her.  

"Hey - you know [dude x, dude y, and dude z]?"

"Those dweebs?  Yeah, what about them?  They do something to you?"

"They really need to be stuffed in garbage cans.  Tell 'em to keep their hands to themselves in the bathroom."

"You got it!"
-----------------------

That's pretty much the whole story.  She reported back to the person, who had cleaned up and looked better, missing 5th period or whatever to hide out in the bathroom.  They shared a laugh, and that's it.  Not sure my wife really had any further dealings with that person.   

So that was the story she told our kids when they were around 13-15.  Age appropriate way to talk about transgender issues, social justice, risk of suicide, bullying and harmful people, how to act, privacy issues, the usefulness of public school staff, but most of all, how to follow the 2nd great commandment "Love thy neighbor".  The story, and dozens like it, kicked off years of discussions where the kids would ask questions, and mom would answer them.  They eventually talked about activism and social pressures to conform and peer pressure and politics and follow the money and issues facing kids who are different and everything.  We figure for every one "real" LGBTQ kid, there are maybe a hundred or more who are just, as Andy says, "grabbing at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it".  So much pressure to pick your pronouns, so many school resources talking about things, so much peer pressure to be inclusive and accepting and not a hater.  In the '90's, it was cool to beat up the gay kids.  Now it's cool to beat up the fascists and the haters.  Parents have always been challenged to give the best messages to their kids.  I think my wife is sort of the gold standard on how to do it right.

Edited July 9, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can see your point and it could have been Reynold's point as well, but I respectfully disagree and would still consider his use to be a biased misuse of the term.

It's not about making someone believe something they otherwise wouldn't believe by focusing on the negative consequences that makes something manipulation.  It's doing it in a deceitful or unscrupulous way that makes it manipulation.

If you don't really believe something is dangerous, but you tell people it is so they will do what you want, then you are attempting to manipulate them.  If you really sincerely believe something is dangerous and you tell them to protect them from a negative consequence that's called educating/parenting/teaching/sharing beliefs (depending on the context of the conversation) in our culture.

Otherwise, every PSA about the dangers of drug abuse or riding a motorcycle without a helmet would be manipulation and every parent that told their teenager about some kid who ended up paralyzed from diving into the shallow end of a pool is just using fear to manipulate them into not doing something they would otherwise do.  But those things aren't considered manipulation because there is nothing immoral or deceitful about sharing that information to produce a desired response.

I also disagree that manipulation has anything to do with retention issues, because again, it's not immoral or dishonest to share sincere beliefs with others, including beliefs in negative or harmful consequences to come with certain choices.

I don’t think “manipulation” is the perfect word for the idea Reynolds was groping at, but if you think that word is offensive, consider whether you’d prefer it be called “cult mind control” or “brainwashing.” It reminds me of a personal anecdote if you’ll humor me.

A psychologist by the name of Dr. Steven Hassan specializes in helping people escape from “cults.”  About 20 years ago, he got a call from a mother who was concerned that her daughter had joined a cult by being baptized a Mormon and asked Dr. Hassan for help. Hassan said he didn’t know if Mormonism was a cult or not, and said he’d do some research on it.

At the time, I had my own website that served as a blog where I was deconstructing my former faith, and I wrote a lot about the missionary experience. Steven Hassan found my site in a Google search and asked me for some help in determining whether Mormonism is a cult. He sent me a questionnaire with about 100 questions that he uses to determine whether an organization is a cult, and asked me to fill them out for Mormonism. According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control. Please keep in mind that at the time Hassan knew absolutely nothing about Mormonism. His experiences and research was in things like the Unification Church and Zen Master Rama.

Here is what I found fascinating about the questions: it was absolutely uncanny how much the missionary rules reflected the BITE model. For example, the top 10 ways cults control your behavior are:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

It goes on and on and on. It’s as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control. The truth is that the missionary experience wasn’t based on Hassan’s model, and Hassan didn’t create his model based on Mormonism. Rather, Mormonism naturally evolved and perpetuates by having the characteristics that cause members to believe. If the Church stopped exercising “cult mind control” members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist.

But to be fair, outside the mission experience the “cult mind control” of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Earlier in this thread, @smac97 said, "Staying active in the Church is, or should be, the effect of faith more than the cause of it.” I agree with him about that in principle, but it reminds me of an email exchange I had when I told a good friend of mine I was leaving the Church. After a long exchange about why I didn’t believe, he asserted that the the evidence doesn't support the Church’s truth claims by design. The test of life isn’t set up so that the smartest people win; rather it’s set up so that the most humble, faithful, and spiritually in-tune people win. He said that if I wanted to regain my testimony I needed to do the following things:

• Read the scriptures for 30 minutes every day
• Earnestly pray every morning and night
• Obey the word of wisdom
• Pay a full tithing
• Obey the other commandments
• Listen to uplifting Church music
• Avoid anti-Momron literature and conversations
• Listen to conference talks
• Think about the Savior and feel gratitude for all He did for us
• Confess my sins to the bishop
•  "Attend all required meetings” (those were my friend’s exact words, which is what Smac’s comment reminded me of)

This list of how to go about gaining a testimony couldn’t have been any better if it was written by Steven Hassan himself.

[LoudmouthMormon]

(shh- nobody tell @Analytics about SEAL or Special Forces military training, medical school residency requirements, mandatory scared straight programs for convicted offenders, or desired daily routines for olympians)

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think “manipulation” is the perfect word for the idea Reynolds was groping at, but if you think that word is offensive, consider whether you’d prefer it be called “cult mind control” or “brainwashing.” It reminds me of a personal anecdote if you’ll humor me.

A psychologist by the name of Dr. Steven Hassan specializes in helping people escape from “cults.”  About 20 years ago, he got a call from a mother who was concerned that her daughter had joined a cult by being baptized a Mormon and asked Dr. Hassan for help. Hassan said he didn’t know if Mormonism was a cult or not, and said he’d do some research on it.

At the time, I had my own website that served as a blog where I was deconstructing my former faith, and I wrote a lot about the missionary experience. Steven Hassan found my site in a Google search and asked me for some help in determining whether Mormonism is a cult. He sent me a questionnaire with about 100 questions that he uses to determine whether an organization is a cult, and asked me to fill them out for Mormonism. According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control. Please keep in mind that at the time Hassan knew absolutely nothing about Mormonism. His experiences and research was in things like the Unification Church and Zen Master Rama.

Here is what I found fascinating about the questions: it was absolutely uncanny how much the missionary rules reflected the BITE model. For example, the top 10 ways cults control your behavior are:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

It goes on and on and on. It’s as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control. The truth is that the missionary experience wasn’t based on Hassan’s model, and Hassan didn’t create his model based on Mormonism. Rather, Mormonism naturally evolved and perpetuates by having the characteristics that cause members to believe. If the Church stopped exercising “cult mind control” members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist.

But to be fair, outside the mission experience the “cult mind control” of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Earlier in this thread, @smac97 said, "Staying active in the Church is, or should be, the effect of faith more than the cause of it.” I agree with him about that in principle, but it reminds me of an email exchange I had when I told a good friend of mine I was leaving the Church. After a long exchange about why I didn’t believe, he asserted that the the evidence doesn't support the Church’s truth claims by design. The test of life isn’t set up so that the smartest people win; rather it’s set up so that the most humble, faithful, and spiritually in-tune people win. He said that if I wanted to regain my testimony I needed to do the following things:

• Read the scriptures for 30 minutes every day
• Earnestly pray every morning and night
• Obey the word of wisdom
• Pay a full tithing
• Obey the other commandments
• Listen to uplifting Church music
• Avoid anti-Momron literature and conversations
• Listen to conference talks
• Think about the Savior and feel gratitude for all He did for us
• Confess my sins to the bishop
•  "Attend all required meetings” (those were my friend’s exact words, which is what Smac’s comment reminded me of)

This list of how to go about gaining a testimony couldn’t have been any better if it was written by Steven Hassan himself.

Utter nonsense.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Mormonism the only cult you can escape by sleeping in on Sunday 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think “manipulation” is the perfect word for the idea Reynolds was groping at, but if you think that word is offensive, consider whether you’d prefer it be called “cult mind control” or “brainwashing.”

Not as bad, but still risible.  When he says things to his children about LGBT issues, is he "manipulating" them?  Or is teaching one's values to his children yet another one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" kind of things?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It reminds me of a personal anecdote if you’ll humor me.

A psychologist by the name of Dr. Steven Hassan specializes in helping people escape from “cults.”  About 20 years ago, he got a call from a mother who was concerned that her daughter had joined a cult by being baptized a Mormon and asked Dr. Hassan for help. Hassan said he didn’t know if Mormonism was a cult or not, and said he’d do some research on it.

At the time, I had my own website that served as a blog where I was deconstructing my former faith, and I wrote a lot about the missionary experience. Steven Hassan found my site in a Google search and asked me for some help in determining whether Mormonism is a cult.

"Cult."

Golly!  No deckstacking there.  Nothing bespeaks impartial and dispassionate assessment than for a self-described "cult expert" to ask a person "deconstructing {his} former faith" to fairly and accurately describe that faith. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

He sent me a questionnaire with about 100 questions that he uses to determine whether an organization is a cult, and asked me to fill them out for Mormonism.

Having interacted with you for oh so many years, I question whether you can be trusted to have spoken credibly and/or accurately "for Mormonism."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control.

"According to his BITE model" being the key wording there.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Please keep in mind that at the time Hassan knew absolutely nothing about Mormonism. His experiences and research was in things like the Unification Church and Zen Master Rama.

 And after his discussion with you he had a clear, comprehensive, even-handed understanding "about Mormonism"?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is what I found fascinating about the questions: it was absolutely uncanny how much the missionary rules reflected the BITE model. For example, the top 10 ways cults control your behavior are:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

This stuff is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, and equivocating, to the point of uselessness.  

I don't know what "regulate individual's physical reality" means.

The Church does not do shunning, nor cloistering, nor compounds, etc.  

The Church imposes constraints on sexual behavior, as does virtually every religious group.  And the Church's constraints are pretty reasonable.

The Church provides guidelines on "clothing and hairstyles," but nothing close to "control" of these things.

The Church encourages healthy eating and once-a-month fasting when possible.  Nothing extreme or injurious at all.  

I don't know what "manipulation and deprivation of sleep" you are referencing here.

The Church asks its members to tithe, which is neither exploitative or manipulative.  And the Church really doesn't encourage anyone to become financially "dependent" on it (quite the contrary, in fact).

"Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time"?  What on earth...?

"Major time" means . . . what?  Apart from serving in leadership positions (many of which were indeed time-consuming), I only spend a few hours each week in Church-related activities.  Sunday services.  My calling.  Visiting neighbors.  Praying and reading scriptures with family.  Going to the temple occasionally.  I have all sorts of free time.

"Permission required for major decisions"?  What are you talking about here?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It goes on and on and on.

The distortions, caricatures, fabrications, falsehoods, etc. do indeed go "on and on and on."

I live as a Latter-day Saint and live among them.  Your laundry list above is profoundly inaccurate, unfair, ugly and false.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It’s as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control.

Oh, brother.

I served in the U.S. Army for 18 months just before my mission.  Of the two, the Army was far more "controlling."  I lived in barracks with regular inspections.  I had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a company commander, a battalion commander, and so on.  I had standing orders as to when to get up, what to wear, what hair length and style I could have, where to eat, what to eat, where to go each day, when to exercise, when to report back to the barracks, with whom I could fraternize (and could not), whether I could drink (and where, and when), and so on.  I also had a contract with the Army, so I was essentially compelled to comply with these things.  The Army could, and did, use the force of law and the threat of punishment (up to and including extra duty, deprivation of pay, fines, imprisonment, etc.) to compel me to do, and not do, things while I was part of it.

I then separated from active duty and went on a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  To be sure, the MTC had some rigor to it, but nothing like Basic Training or other training in the Army.  For some in my group who had just come from home or from a year of college, the regulated daily schedule could be difficult.  For me, it was a walk in the park as compared to the Army.  Once I arrived in Taiwan, I went to work.  I saw my mission president once a month, maybe twice.  What I did all day, every day was purely a matter of choice between me and my companion.  We had the "Little White Bible" and its instructions, but no compulsory compliance with it.  Nobody babysat us.  I worked my tail off for two years, and did so on a daily basis with very little oversight.  And unlike the Army, I did all of this voluntarily.  I could have left at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.  Also unlike the Army, the Church had only as much authority over me as I chose to give it.  No force of law at all.  No compulsion.  

And yet, by your reckoning, the Army is not a "cult," but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is.

Yeah, not really buying that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The truth is that the missionary experience wasn’t based on Hassan’s model, and Hassan didn’t create his model based on Mormonism.

And Hassan's model is rife with flaws, overgeneralizations, lack of empirical evidence or research, subjectivity, ambiguity, special pleading, and so on.

Per this article, Hassan has never been qualified as an expert in any legal setting.  While not definitive, qualifying as an expert can be a useful benchmark.  From the article:

Quote

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?

Here is Mr. Hassan's website: https://freedomofmind.com/

Down at the bottom of the page he lists, under the category of "Professional Consults," the following:

Quote

Freedom of Mind offers a range of professional consultation services  including litigation consulting, expert witness services, and mental health, law enforcement, and estate planning consultation.

 (Emphasis added.)

Huh.  He says he provides "expert witness services," but I can't find any references on his website to cases where he has actually done so (I point I previously noted in 2019).

If Mr. Hassan had been qualified as an expert witness, I think he would make a big deal out of that.  His website works hard to make him and his credentials sound impressive.  That he has not published any such qualification suggests, to me, that he has not been qualified as an expert witness.  Ever.  And if he has not been qualified as an expert witness, his self-bestowed "expert" title starts to lose its luster.

Quote

Steve Hassan’s latest book, just like the one before it, is self-published. If Mr Hassan were in fact “the #1 exit counsellor,” 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.

Moreover, "the missionary experience" is, by design, of finite duration.  Mighty odd for a "cult" bent on "control" of its members to not allow them to go beyond the prescribed limits on missionary service.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rather, Mormonism naturally evolved and perpetuates by having the characteristics that cause members to believe.

Yes.  The Spirit.  The Scriptures.  Living prophets and apostles.  Wise counsel.  Virtuous principles.  Emphasis on family, hard work, education, and healthy living.  A great sense of community.  

And for those who wish to leave the Church for any reason, or no reason at all, there is nothing the Church can do about it.  The Church's own doctrines specifically and profoundly limit and circumscribe its own authority over the lives of its members and their property:

Quote

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

This is mighty odd doctrine for a supposed mind-controlling "cult."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If the Church stopped exercising “cult mind control” members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist.

But to be fair, outside the mission experience the “cult mind control” of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

"To be fair."  Yes, I sure get a nice, cozy, feeling of "fairness" when it comes to you characterizing our faith.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Earlier in this thread, @smac97 said, "Staying active in the Church is, or should be, the effect of faith more than the cause of it.” I agree with him about that in principle, but it reminds me of an email exchange I had when I told a good friend of mine I was leaving the Church. After a long exchange about why I didn’t believe, he asserted that the the evidence doesn't support the Church’s truth claims by design. 

I don't know what he means by "the evidence" (and given your track record on this board, I'm not exactly inclined to take you as a reliable source of information about what this or that anonymous Latter-day Saint said).

For my part, I think the truth claims of the Church have never been intended to be empirically provable or disprovable.  Were it otherwise, we would not need faith.  

That said, as between your friend and these remarks by Elder Holland, I'll go with the latter:

Quote

My testimony to you tonight is that the gospel is infallibly true and that a variety of infallible proofs supporting that assertion will continue to come until Jesus descends as the ultimate infallible truth of all. Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth.

To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[10]
...
[10] Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26.

I am fine with walking primarily by faith.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The test of life isn’t set up so that the smartest people win; rather it’s set up so that the most humble, faithful, and spiritually in-tune people win. He said that if I wanted to regain my testimony I needed to do the following things:

• Read the scriptures for 30 minutes every day
• Earnestly pray every morning and night
• Obey the word of wisdom
• Pay a full tithing
• Obey the other commandments
• Listen to uplifting Church music
• Avoid anti-Momron literature and conversations
• Listen to conference talks
• Think about the Savior and feel gratitude for all He did for us
• Confess my sins to the bishop
•  "Attend all required meetings” (those were my friend’s exact words, which is what Smac’s comment reminded me of)

This list of how to go about gaining a testimony couldn’t have been any better if it was written by Steven Hassan himself.

Religious observance = belonging to a "cult."

And Steven Hassan's say-so is definitive because . . . he says so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2024 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not as bad, but still risible.  When he says things to his children about LGBT issues, is he "manipulating" them?  Or is teaching one's values to his children yet another one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" kind of things?

"Cult."

Golly!  No deckstacking there.  Nothing bespeaks impartial and dispassionate assessment than for a self-described "cult expert" to ask a person "deconstructing {his} former faith" to fairly and accurately describe that faith. 

Having interacted with you for oh so many years, I question whether you can be trusted to have spoken credibly and/or accurately "for Mormonism."

"According to his BITE model" being the key wording there.  

 And after his discussion with you he had a clear, comprehensive, even-handed understanding "about Mormonism"?

This stuff is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, and equivocating, to the point of uselessness.  

I don't know what "regulate individual's physical reality" means.

The Church does not do shunning, nor cloistering, nor compounds, etc.  

The Church imposes constraints on sexual behavior, as does virtually every religious group.

The Church provides guidelines on "clothing and hairstyles," but nothing close to "control" of these things.

The Church encourages healthy eating and once-a-month fasting when possible.  Nothing extreme or injurious at all.  

I don't know what "manipulation and deprivation of sleep" you are referencing here.

The Church asks its members to tithe, which is neither exploitative or manipulative.  And the Church really doesn't encourage anyone to become financially "dependent" on it (quite the contrary, in fact).

"Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time"?  What on earth...?

"Major time" means . . . what?  Apart from serving in leadership positions (many of which were indeed time-consuming), I only spend a few hours each week in Church-related activities.  Sunday services.  My calling.  Visiting neighbors.  Praying and reading scriptures with family.  Going to the temple occasionally.  I have all sorts of free time.

"Permission required for major decisions"?  What are you talking about here?

The distortions, caricatures, fabrications, falsehoods, etc. do indeed go "on and on and on."

I live as a Latter-day Saint and live among them.  Your laundry list above is profoundly inaccurate, unfair, ugly and false.

Oh, brother.

I served in the U.S. Army for 18 months just before my mission.  Of the two, the Army was far more "controlling."  I lived in barracks with regular inspections.  I had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a company commander, a battalion commander, and so on.  I had standing orders as to when to get up, what to wear, what hair length and style I could have, where to eat, what to eat, where to go each day, when to exercise, when to report back to the barracks, with whom I could fraternize (and could not), whether I could drink (and where, and when), and so on.  I also had a contract with the Army, so I was essentially compelled to comply with these things.  The Army could, and did, use the force of law and the threat of punishment (up to and including extra duty, deprivation of pay, fines, imprisonment, etc.) to compel me to do, and not do, things while I was part of it.

I then separated from active duty and went on a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  To be sure, the MTC had some rigor to it, but nothing like Basic Training or other training in the Army.  For some in my group who had just come from home or from a year of college, the regulated daily schedule could be difficult.  For me, it was a walk in the park as compared to the Army.  Once I arrived in Taiwan, I went to work.  I saw my mission president once a month, maybe twice.  What I did all day, every day was purely a matter of choice between me and my companion.  We had the "Little White Bible" and its instructions, but no compulsory compliance with it.  Nobody babysat us.  I worked my tail off for two years, and did so on a daily basis with very little oversight.  And unlike the Army, I did all of this voluntarily.  I could have left at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.  Also unlike the Army, the Church had only as much authority over me as I chose to give it.  No force of law at all.  No compulsion.  

And yet, by your reckoning, the Army is not a "cult," but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is.

Yeah, not really buying that.

And Hassan's model is rife with flaws, overgeneralizations, lack of empirical evidence or research, subjectivity, ambiguity, special pleading, and so on.

Moreover, "the missionary experience" is, by design, of finite duration.  Mighty odd for a "cult" bent on "control" of its members to not allow them to go beyond the prescribed limits on missionary service.

Yes.  The Spirit.  The Scriptures.  Living prophets and apostles.  Wise counsel.  Virtuous principles.  Emphasis on family, hard work, education, and healthy living.  A great sense of community.  

And for those who wish to leave the Church for any reason, or no reason at all, there is nothing the Church can do about it.  The Church's own doctrines specifically and profoundly limit and circumscribe its own authority over the lives of its members and their property:

This is mighty odd doctrine for a supposed mind-controlling "cult."

"To be fair."  Yes, I sure get a nice, cozy, feeling of "fairness" when it comes to you characterizing our faith.

I don't know what he means by "the evidence" (and given your track record on this board, I'm not exactly inclined to take you as a reliable source of information about what this or that anonymous Latter-day Saint said).

For my part, I think the truth claims of the Church have never been intended to be empirically provable or disprovable.  Were it otherwise, we would not need faith.  

That said, as between your friend and these remarks by Elder Holland, I'll go with the latter:

I am fine with walking primarily by faith.  

Religious observance = belonging to a "cult."

And Steven Hassan's say-so is definitive because . . . he says so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Like I said... "Utter nonsense." 😁

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control.

Looking through the FAQ section of the website: 

Quote

What’s the difference between a destructive cult and a benign cult?

A destructive cult is a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control.  It uses deception to recruit new members and does not tell them what the group is, what it actually believes, and what will be expected of them if they become members.  It also uses mind control techniques to keep people dependent, obedient, and loyal.  The BITE Model is our way of understanding the phenomenon.  
...
Benign cult groups are any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream.  As long as people can freely choose to join with full disclosure of the group’s doctrine and practices and can choose to disaffiliate without fear or harassment, then it is not a destructive cult.

There are destructive groups that are anti-social.  They teach hate and encourage criminal activity.  A case-by-case evaluation must determine if a group uses elements of the BITE Model to recruit and control people.

I'm ok belonging to a benign cult group, I guess.   Any group with non-mainstream beliefs and rituals?  Can freely join or leave?  Full disclosure of doctrine and practices?  Totally describes me and my group.

I'm talking, of course, about:
- The various homeschooling co-ops we took advantage of when raising our kids.
- My kids' D&D group and online Minecraft server.
- My membership-controlled access to my local shooting range. (If located in a different state, this would be more mainstream.)
- Dozens upon dozens of eclectic and not-mainstream Facebook groups of which wife or I are members.
- An awful lot of peer groups since my youth, dedicated to all sorts of non-mainstream purposes.
- Oh, and yeah, my church.

 

For years, this was my avatar here at Mormondialogue.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Completely off topic, but this seems to be the one chance I have to gripe about a problem I've had with this particular hymn.  Just a small nitpick, but it has bothered me for YEARS.  And I've never said anything about it to anyone.  Until now.

To wit: "He Only" is not the same as "Only He."  In the third verse, the lyrics read "He only could unlock the gate" which means that unlocking the gate was the only thing he could do.  The lyric SHOULD read "Only he could unlock the gate" which would mean that he was the only one who could unlock the gate.  I get it; it doesn't scan as well in my version.  But it still BUGS ME.  

Rant over.  Please continue with your on-topic discussions.

I always understood "He only" in that verse to mean 'He alone,' but I can see where you are coming from.

Still, theologically, we aren't Calvinists who hold to a belief in irresistible grace, so in some sense it would still be acceptable to say that "He only could unlock the gate of heaven and let us in," because "God will force no man to heav'n" (see, e.g., Hymn 240).

 

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Cult."

Golly!  No deckstacking there.

Please keep in mind that his definition of “cult” is based upon psychology and wasn’t designed as a way to attack Mormonism. My interaction began with him asking the question whether it is a cult.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"According to his BITE model" being the key wording there.  

Exactly. What I’m talking about is well-defined.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 And after his discussion with you he had a clear, comprehensive, even-handed understanding "about Mormonism"?

With regards to answering his question about whether it exercises "cult mind control," yes.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This stuff is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, and equivocating, to the point of uselessness.  

Just to be clear, you are claiming that a 400 page book (Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves) is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, equivocating, and useless, and you were able to come to this conclusion without even reading it. Right?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church imposes constraints on sexual behavior, as does virtually every religious group.

Does every religious group kick undergraduates out of college for a year of penance if they have sex?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "regulate individual's physical reality" means.

The Church does not do shunning, nor cloistering, nor compounds, etc.  

You haven’t been to the MTC?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church provides guidelines on "clothing and hairstyles," but nothing close to "control" of these things.

Missionaries are free to wear whatever they want and choose their own hair styles? Good to know.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church encourages healthy eating and once-a-month fasting when possible.  Nothing extreme or injurious at all.  

I told Dr. Hassan that the Church forbids members from consuming coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. This is enforced with annual temple recommend interviews: if you break this commandment, you have to face the bishop, temple blessings are withheld, you could get kicked out of BYU, and you might even be forbidden from attending your own child’s wedding. In contrast, you merely say the Church “encourages healthy eating.” In the context of Dr. Hassan’s model on social influence processes, you are the one misrepresenting the Church, not me.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "manipulation and deprivation of sleep" you are referencing here.

Missionaries had a strict requirement to get up at 6:30 and lights out at 10:30. Is that no longer the case?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church asks its members to tithe, which is neither exploitative or manipulative.  And the Church really doesn't encourage anyone to become financially "dependent" on it (quite the contrary, in fact).

When I was a missionary, the Church insisted that all funds go through the Church. We were forbidden from accessing our own money or directly accessing money from friends or family, and we were forbidden from getting a part-time job to make extra money. That was total financial dependency.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time"?  What on earth...?

How many vacations did you take as a missionary? Did you see any movies? Could you go swimming on P-day? Were you allowed to play full-court basketball?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Permission required for major decisions"?  What are you talking about here?

What major decisions can a missionary make without permission from the mission president?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The distortions, caricatures, fabrications, falsehoods, etc. do indeed go "on and on and on."

I live as a Latter-day Saint and live among them.  Your laundry list above is profoundly inaccurate, unfair, ugly and false.

I didn’t provide a laundry list of anything. I simply quoted the first ten bullet points of ways groups might control members’ behavior. This list was complied before Hassan knew anything about Mormonism. 

Dr. Steven Hassan wrote a serious book about social influence processes and how that relates to what he calls “destructive mind control.” If you’d like to seriously engage with his ideas, that would be great; send me a PM and I’ll send you a copy of his book. But if you’d just like to flail and simultaneously claim that there is no such thing as destructive mind control, and claim that destructive mind control isn’t well defined, and claim that the Church doesn’t engage in it as defined in his book, then have fun with that.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I served in the U.S. Army for 18 months just before my mission.... 

But you didn’t read a single page of any of Steven Hassan’s books on social influence processing and how that relates to "destructive mind control" before declaring that it is full of "flaws, overgeneralizations, lack of empirical evidence or research, subjectivity, ambiguity, special pleading, and so on."

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Looking through the FAQ section of the website: 

I'm ok belonging to a benign cult group, I guess.   Any group with non-mainstream beliefs and rituals?  Can freely join or leave?  Full disclosure of doctrine and practices?  Totally describes me and my group.

I'm talking, of course, about:
- The various homeschooling co-ops we took advantage of when raising our kids.
- My kids' D&D group and online Minecraft server.
- My membership-controlled access to my local shooting range. (If located in a different state, this would be more mainstream.)
- Dozens upon dozens of eclectic and not-mainstream Facebook groups of which wife or I are members.
- An awful lot of peer groups since my youth, dedicated to all sorts of non-mainstream purposes.
- Oh, and yeah, my church.

Are people free to quit missions? It reminds me of the book The Accidental Terrorist by William Shunn. Read that book about a couple of guys who wanted to quit their missions and tell me that they are “totally free” to do so.

Leaving the Church is easier, which is why I said the Church is much less cultish than the mission experience. But I wouldn’t say you are “totally free” to leave the Church in the same way you are totally free to drop out of Toastmasters; when people leave the Church, all sorts of implicit and explicit threats about breaking covenants, destroying eternal families, disappointing God, and being left in Satan’s power are made.

[smac97]

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Please keep in mind that his definition of “cult” is based upon psychology

Right.  Your veneration of scientism extends to psychology as well, it seems.

Meanwhile, his "definition of 'cult'" has apparently never been accepted as legally competent by an impartial factfinder, nor has his supposed status of "cult expert."

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

and wasn’t designed as a way to attack Mormonism.

He attacks religions that he subjectively and arbitrarily wants to designate "cults."  Our faith just happens to be one of them.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

My interaction began with him asking the question whether it is a cult.

A question that is steeped in equivocation, unspoken assumptions, and question begging.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

"According to his BITE model" being the key wording there.  

Exactly. What I’m talking about is well-defined.

Right.  So "well-defined" that it has apparently been relied upon in court . . . never.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

And after his discussion with you he had a clear, comprehensive, even-handed understanding "about Mormonism"?

With regards to answering his question about whether it exercises "cult mind control," yes.

Right.  I'm sure this discussion between the self-declared "cult expert" and the guy exiting his religion (which he has subsequently been attacking for years) was overflowing with impartial, clinical assessments, descriptions and conclusions.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

This stuff is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, and equivocating, to the point of uselessness.  

Just to be clear, you are claiming that a 400 page book (Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves) is vague, overgeneralized, risible, ambiguous, subjective, value-laden, equivocating, and useless, and you were able to come to this conclusion without even reading it. Right?

I've read plenty of stuff about Hassan.  I have also noted that he has never been qualified as an expert witness.  

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Does every religious group kick undergraduates out of college for a year of penance if they have sex?

Does having a strict code of sexual conduct make an organization a "cult?"

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church does not do shunning, nor cloistering, nor compounds, etc.  

You haven’t been to the MTC?

Give me a break, Roger.  At 17 I spent 8 weeks in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Is the U.S. Army a "cult" because of that?

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church provides guidelines on "clothing and hairstyles," but nothing close to "control" of these things.

Missionaries are free to wear whatever they want and choose their own hair styles? Good to know.

This is getting dumb (or it started there). 

The Army was far more restrictive on clothing and hairstyles, but no reasonable person therefore calls it a "cult."

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

I told Dr. Hassan that the Church forbids members from consuming coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco.

Islam prohibits consumption of alcohol and pork.

Judaism and Seventh-day Adventists prohibit consumption of pork and shellfish.

Hindus cannot eat beef, and many practice vegetarianism.

Buddhist (kinda) recommends or requires vegetarianism.

Jainists are strict vegetarians.

Many Sikhs follow a lacto-vegetarian diet.

Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays.

Let's see, I think this amounts to about 5 billion or so people who - by your reckoning - are "cultists" because they belong to a religious group which has dietary guidelines/rules.

And this assessment is, according to you, "well-defined."

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

This is enforced with annual temple recommend interviews: if you break this commandment, you have to face the bishop, temple blessings are withheld, you could get kicked out of BYU, and you might even be forbidden from attending your own child’s wedding. In contrast, you merely say the Church “encourages healthy eating.” In the context of Dr. Hassan’s model on social influence processes, you are the one misrepresenting the Church, not me.

I'm pretty comfortable with my track record versus yours when it comes to fairly and accurately describing the Church.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

I don't know what "manipulation and deprivation of sleep" you are referencing here.

Missionaries had a strict requirement to get up at 6:30 and lights out at 10:30. Is that no longer the case?

A missionary rule that requires missionaries to be in bed by 10:30 and up at 6:30, thus resulting in eight hours of sleep, is - in your view - a "cultish" practice involving "manipulation and deprivation of sleep"?

How very unserious you are about this.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

When I was a missionary, the Church insisted that all funds go through the Church.

"All funds" referring to donations (tithes, missionary work, etc.)?  Yes.  It makes perfect sense for a Church to which "funds" are donated, and for which funds the Church is responsible, to exercise custody and control over those funds.  It is rather silly to suggest that this is "cult" behavior.

The remainder of the members income, meanwhile, remains within the custody and control of the members.  

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

We were forbidden from accessing our own money

"We" meaning missionaries?  It wasn't your money.  It was donated to the Church.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

or directly accessing money from friends or family,

Money from friends or family donated to the Church, not to you.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

and we were forbidden from getting a part-time job to make extra money.

For the limited term of your missionary service, yes. 

When I was in IET (Initial Entry Training) in the Army, I couldn't get a part-time job either.  That doesn't make the Army a "cult."

During my first year of law school, I was essentially prohibited from working at all (the expectation/requirement was that students needed to spend all their time studying).  That doesn't make law school a "cult."

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

That was total financial dependency.

What silliness this is.  Missionary life is unique in many respects, notably its intentionally limited duration.  

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

How many vacations did you take as a missionary?

I thoroughly enjoyed my P-Days.

How many vacations did I take while in the Army?  Just Christmas Break, then I was back at it.  That doesn't make the Army a "cult."

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Did you see any movies?  Could you go swimming on P-day? Were you allowed to play full-court basketball?

I couldn't watch movies during Basic Training, either.  Or go on vacation.  Or go swimming.  Or play basketball.

How utterly unserious you are being here.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

What major decisions can a missionary make without permission from the mission president?

All of them.  He is not compelled to be there.  He can leave at any time.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

I didn’t provide a laundry list of anything.

Yes, you did:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

I simply quoted the first ten bullet points of ways groups might control members’ behavior. This list was complied before Hassan knew anything about Mormonism. 

And it's a laundry list.

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

Dr. Steven Hassan wrote a serious book about social influence processes and how that relates to what he calls “destructive mind control.”

Yes, yes.  We're all familiar with your scientism.  If some guy is credentialled, and if he says something you like, you praise him to the skies and raise him up as some sort of authority, often as to matters only tangentially related to his supposed field of expertise.

And Hassan's supposed "cult expert" status is so watery he can't point to a single instance of having been qualified as an expert witness in court.  But since he "wrote a serious book," his say-so is authoritative?

On 7/9/2024 at 5:13 PM, Analytics said:

If you’d like to seriously engage with his ideas, that would be great; send me a PM and I’ll send you a copy of his book. But if you’d just like to flail and simultaneously claim that there is no such thing as destructive mind control, and claim that destructive mind control isn’t well defined, and claim that the Church doesn’t engage in it as defined in his book, then have fun with that.

But you didn’t read a single page of any of Steven Hassan’s books on social influence processing and how that relates to "destructive mind control" before declaring that it is full of "flaws, overgeneralizations, lack of empirical evidence or research, subjectivity, ambiguity, special pleading, and so on."

Yawn.  Bland generalizations from an ardent anti-Mormon about a self-declared "cult expert" is not enough to pique a desire to "seriously engage."  If Hassan hasn't managed to persuade a single judge anywhere in the United States that his credential and expertise are sufficient to qualify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or a corollary state court rule), and if he trades on risible, but still vague, terms and terminology, then I'll pass.  Life is short, those willing to dole out boorish crapola about religious groups they dislike are many.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Are people free to quit missions?

Of course there are.  This question is either posed in bad faith, or else exposes a vast ignorance on your part.

Missionaries "quit" all the time.  All the time.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It reminds me of the book The Accidental Terrorist by William Shunn. Read that book about a couple of guys who wanted to quit their missions and tell me that they are “totally free” to do so.

They were totally free to do so.

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Leaving the Church is easier, which is why I said the Church is much less cultish than the mission experience.

My brother came home from his mission early, at his request (he went back out and finished it).  I have a nephew who came home for a while, then went back out.  My sister's cousin came home early and did not go back out.

This happens all the time.  

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But I wouldn’t say you are “totally free” to leave the Church in the same way you are totally free to drop out of Toastmasters; when people leave the Church, all sorts of implicit and explicit threats about breaking covenants, destroying eternal families, disappointing God, and being left in Satan’s power are made.

And yet no compulsion, coercion, duress, etc.  

If missionaries' civil liberties were being violated as you suggest, the Church would be getting sued all over the place.  It's not.  QED.

How very unserious you are being.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, his "definition of 'cult'" has apparently never been accepted as legally competent by an impartial factfinder, nor has his supposed status of "cult expert.”...

...I spent 8 weeks in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Is the U.S. Army a "cult" because of that?

...The Army was far more restrictive on clothing and hairstyles, but no reasonable person therefore calls it a "cult."

IAnd Hassan's supposed "cult expert" status is so watery he can't point to a single instance of having been qualified as an expert witness in court.  But since he "wrote a serious book," his say-so is authoritative?...

Your repeated references to the Army and repeated insinuations that nobody has any credibility about anything unless they have been called as an expert witness are ironic. Philip G. Zimbardo is a full professor at psychology at Stanford and was the president of the American Psychological Association. He offered the following quote for the dust jacket of Hassan’s book Freedom of Mind. Zimbardo said:

Quote

Steven Hassan’s approach is one that I value more than that of any other researcher or clinical practitioner. Hassan is a model of clear exposition, his original ideas are brilliantly presented in a captivating style. I am confident that readers of his book will share my enthusiasm for what this authr tells us about how to deal with the growing menace of undue social influence and cults

While I’ll take your word for it that Hassan has never been a qualified expert witness in court, Professor Zimbardo has. Specifically, he was an expert witness in a military court martial for the defense of Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, who was one of the Abu Ghraib prison guards. Zimbardo argued in court that Frederick isn’t fully to blame for what he did in Abu Ghraib because (wait for it), the military psychologically manipulated the prison guards.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think “manipulation” is the perfect word for the idea Reynolds was groping at, but if you think that word is offensive, consider whether you’d prefer it be called “cult mind control” or “brainwashing.” It reminds me of a personal anecdote if you’ll humor me.

To the bold above, are you trying to argue that when Reynolds used the term manipulation he actually meant that he grew up in a mind controlling cult but was trying to be nice?  

If that's what you are saying then I think you've jumped the shark a bit with this new turn.

Quote

 

A psychologist by the name of Dr. Steven Hassan specializes in helping people escape from “cults.”  About 20 years ago, he got a call from a mother who was concerned that her daughter had joined a cult by being baptized a Mormon and asked Dr. Hassan for help. Hassan said he didn’t know if Mormonism was a cult or not, and said he’d do some research on it.

At the time, I had my own website that served as a blog where I was deconstructing my former faith, and I wrote a lot about the missionary experience. Steven Hassan found my site in a Google search and asked me for some help in determining whether Mormonism is a cult. He sent me a questionnaire with about 100 questions that he uses to determine whether an organization is a cult, and asked me to fill them out for Mormonism. According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control. Please keep in mind that at the time Hassan knew absolutely nothing about Mormonism. His experiences and research was in things like the Unification Church and Zen Master Rama.

Here is what I found fascinating about the questions: it was absolutely uncanny how much the missionary rules reflected the BITE model. For example, the top 10 ways cults control your behavior are:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

It goes on and on and on. It’s as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control. The truth is that the missionary experience wasn’t based on Hassan’s model, and Hassan didn’t create his model based on Mormonism. Rather, Mormonism naturally evolved and perpetuates by having the characteristics that cause members to believe. If the Church stopped exercising “cult mind control” members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist.

But to be fair, outside the mission experience the “cult mind control” of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

 

It's hard for me to take an attempt to argue that the 24 month/18 month rules of mission life is a sign that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult as an attempt at a good-faith discussion.  That would be like trying to argue that the strict rules I had to follow while taking a Chem lab in college meant the college was a cult while keeping a straight face.

(The argument also ignores the fact that many many missionaries don't follow all of those rules and never have any negative consequences doled out to them by mission leaders.)

Quote

 

Earlier in this thread, @smac97 said, "Staying active in the Church is, or should be, the effect of faith more than the cause of it.” I agree with him about that in principle, but it reminds me of an email exchange I had when I told a good friend of mine I was leaving the Church. After a long exchange about why I didn’t believe, he asserted that the the evidence doesn't support the Church’s truth claims by design. The test of life isn’t set up so that the smartest people win; rather it’s set up so that the most humble, faithful, and spiritually in-tune people win. He said that if I wanted to regain my testimony I needed to do the following things:

• Read the scriptures for 30 minutes every day
• Earnestly pray every morning and night
• Obey the word of wisdom
• Pay a full tithing
• Obey the other commandments
• Listen to uplifting Church music
• Avoid anti-Momron literature and conversations
• Listen to conference talks
• Think about the Savior and feel gratitude for all He did for us
• Confess my sins to the bishop
•  "Attend all required meetings” (those were my friend’s exact words, which is what Smac’s comment reminded me of)

This list of how to go about gaining a testimony couldn’t have been any better if it was written by Steven Hassan himself.

 

I'm sorry that your friend didn't respond to you in the way that you found helpful, but his list of how to go about gaining a testimony is nowhere found in church teachings or publications.  It's a list that he came up with himself (I'm sure in good faith and using his interpretation of the teachings of the leaders of the church and scripture as reference, but that list is his). 

Hopefully after all the hours you've spent here and talking with members you've been able to realize that your friend's way of helping would not be all active members' way of helping.  It definitely would not be mine, and I am just as much a church member raised in the same church environment as him.  The reason that our views on this subject would be different despite both being active members is because the church isn't a cult and doesn't brainwash anyone, and we are all allowed to have our own perspectives on this kind of stuff that sometimes (or often, depending on the topic) disagree with each other in small or large ways and still be considered active believing members.

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by bluebell

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

(shh- nobody tell @Analytics about SEAL or Special Forces military training, medical school residency requirements, mandatory scared straight programs for convicted offenders, or desired daily routines for olympians)

Cults, all of them!

[ZealouslyStriving]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My sister's cousin came home early and did not go back out

I just want to know the story...

How is she you sister's cousin and not your cousin? Is it a half-sister thing?