Article Re Dan Reynolds

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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:

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.

For the record, I have no issue with Hassan's list when applied appropriately.

You are not applying it appropriately.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

Not really.  Analogies to the Army are apt because both institutions (it and the Church) impose considerable, but very short-term, restrictions on trainees, and thereafter ease up on those restrictions considerably.  

Nobody characterizes the Army as a "cult" for doing this.

Meanwhile, a 2-8 week stay at the MTC, which involves three square meals, clean living, hymns, scripture study, and is entirely voluntary, renders the Church a "cult."

Again, how unserious you are being.

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Philip G. Zimbardo is a full professor at psychology at Stanford and was the president of the American Psychological Association.

The same "Philip G. Zimbardo" who crafted the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment?  

Your choices of adjudicators of moral and ethical judgment continue to not impress.

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

So Hassan's expertise and competency as a self-described "cult expert" is established because some other credentialed fellow wrote a dust jacket blurb on one of Hassan's books?

Oh.

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

And Frederick ended up being sentenced to eight years in prison.

And Zimbardo's expertise in the Stanford Prison Experiment (!) and Abu Ghraib are somehow exportable to Steve Hassan's assessment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Keep 'em coming, Roger.  

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

And this italicized bit is useful to indict the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . how, exactly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

For the record, I have no issue with Hassan's list when applied appropriately.

You are not applying it appropriately.

That's not a bug, but a feature of Hassan's reasoning.  It's malleable.  People like Roger can arbitrarily apply it, or not apply it, at their preference.  And Roger can then declare that this arbitrary application is authoritative and helpful because a (self-designated) "cult expert" came up with its (notably vague, overgeneralized, subjective, value-judgment-laden) parameters.

And who can argue with Steve Hassan?  The man is credentialed!  He has an undergrad in poetry and a Ph.D in Organizational Development and Change!  And he's a former Moonie!

These days, Hassan is plying his self-described "cult expert" trade to . . . politics (I'll give you three guesses which notably orange political figure has been in his crosshairs).  Doing so requires Hassan to utilize, as this article puts it, "expansive definition of cult" and his "scientifically debated terms like brainwashing."

This article also comments on Hassan:

Quote

However, it is notable that in this third book, Hassan has greatly expanded his target audience due to what he says is cult activity “increasing exponentially,” and the “rise of the Internet”. Since Hassan maintains a substantial Internet presence through his Web site,[…], it could be argued that he has increased public sensitivity to cults, thereby magnifying the importance of his solutions, as well as providing a forum where he can extensively promote his own theories and agenda.

“Cults are on the rise” seems to be the theme of this latest book. But there is no proof of this claim. Hassan offers no scientific study or survey with statistics to prove his theory. It may be that “cults are on a downward turn,” or perhaps “cults have stayed the same”. These possibilities may not help in the marketing and sale of books, but they are two equal possibilities. Of course, none of these statements regarding the growth or decline of cults is based upon scientific evidence. Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense.

"Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense."

Hmm.

Unlike Hassan, the author of this piece, Cathleen A. Mann, has a Ph.D in psychology. 

Also unlike Hassan, 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."

Also unlike Hassan, I have no idea what she has to say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She continues:

Quote

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.

"{T}o frighten people and provide him with a marketing tool to sell books."

Hmm.

She goes on to critique Hassan's nebulous usage of "cult":

Quote

It is important to note that within his third book Hassan has added new ingredients to his definition of a cult. He claims in the first chapter that a cult uses (1) authoritarian leadership, (2) deception, and (3) destructive mind control. The title of his new book now mentions “beliefs,” but this is not in his definition. It is troubling that a book was supposedly written to educate the public about cults would even enter into the area of “beliefs,” when almost all cult educators and experts don’t focus on beliefs, but rather on harmful practices.

"{A}lmost all cult educators and experts don’t focus on beliefs, but rather on harmful practices."

Fortunately, we have Roger here to pick up where Hassan has failed.  Roger has identified the Church's "harmful practices," such as rules limiting missionaries from "vacations," full-court basketball, and requiring them to get 8 hours of sleep every day.  

Comme c'est terrible!  How do the Brethren sleep at night, knowing that these "harmful practices" are being inflicted on missionaries!

Mann continues:

Quote

Hassan persists in using the term “destructive mind control,” which is not a term used in any legal setting and that has no real meaning. Mind control seems quite ominous and rather sensational, but this term does nothing to further the discussion about the dynamics of cults and how they operate. The research done in this area does not mention the term “mind control,” but uses terms such as “undue influence”, which express a more precise and exact meaning.

Hassan using risible, provocative terminology, as an erstwhile "expert" on "cults" (which putative expertise is also apparently his primary source of income)?  Who saw that coming?

Mann continues:

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?

(Emphasis added.)

Fortunately, Roger has provided the answer to Mann's question.  "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?"  The answer, of course, is Roger has recognized him as an expert.  Ipso facto...

Mann continues:

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.

(Emphasis added.)

Not only has Mr. Hassan failed to persuade a single judge in the United States of his supposed expertise, he apparently can't even find a publisher willing to go along with the idea.

Mann continues:

Quote

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 centre 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. 

Steve Hassan: The Cultist Whisperer!

Quote

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.

(Emphasis added.)

Mr. Hassan is, it seems, Jewish.  I wonder if he would go along with labeling Judaism a "cult," what with it's rabbinical leaders, constraints on diet, sexuality, etc.  I certainly wouldn't.  I also doubt Roger would label Jews as cultists.

Quote

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.

(Emphases added.)

Hassan failed to give proper attribution?  "Something akin to plagiarism?"  Who could've seen that coming?

Quote

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.

(Emphasis added.)

Boy, Roger.  You sure know how to pick 'em.

Quote

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 saviour. 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 behaviour works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counselling. These claims exist entirely within the confines of “Hassanology”. Again, the tone of Mr Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas.

(Emphases added.)

Oi.

Quote

Another troubling claim is that Hassan believes that all cult members suffer from phobias (p.56). Again, Hassan presents his idea as 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?

Fortunately, Roger is here to assure us that Hassan's book is "serious." And Hassan has been endorsed by the guy who created the Stanford Prison Experiment, which - as we all know - is the benchmark of ethical research in psychological circles.

I guess that's all we need to know.

Quote

In Chapter 3, Hassan re-introduces his intervention model, the Strategic interaction Approach (SIA). He states that this model will “promote change and encourage growth in the family as well as in the cult member” (p. 36). Mr Hassan promotes this model as the preferred alternative to “old style” deprogramming and/or “exit counselling”. However, what Hassan does not discuss here or for that matter in his two preceding books, is that his approach includes elements of counselling. And there is nothing specifically mentioned about the cult member being counselled explicitly understanding that they are participating in counselling, i.e. informed consent. In fact, it appears that Hassan does not see the need to offer his SIA counselling as a matter of choice, but instead uses the family dynamic as a tool to keep the cult member talking and then to spring his counselling upon them without informed consent. All professional counselling requires such an understanding and explicit consent before it begins. Counselling, by its very nature, is persuasive and constitutes an unequal power dynamic. A licensed professional counsellor that does not know this can do harm to people. People must agree and be amenable to receiving counselling, regardless of what the setting or stated goal may be. The ends do not justify the means. This principle is often cited concerning the questionable behaviour of cults and should apply to those attempting to help cult members as well.

"{Danger stemming from a lack of informed consent} is often cited concerning the questionable behaviour of cults and should apply to those attempting to help cult members as well."  "Those attempting..." including, presumably, Steve Hassan.

Quote

It is important at this juncture to point out that there is really nothing new or unique about the SIA approach. It merely represents a reworking of family systems theory, with no credit given by Hassan to its pioneers, such as expert family systems practitioners Virginia Satir or the Milan Family System theorists. SIA relies heavily on the body of theory and practice within family systems. Hassan’s remarks about the superiority of the SIA over exit counselling within his books is a thinly disguised attempt to say his method is fundamentally more effective and therefore has better results. 

(Emphasis added.)

Roger says Hassan "create{d} his model."  Apparently not.

Quote

However, nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results or what constitutes a successful SIA type of family work with a cult member. Yes, Hassan provides anecdotal evidence selectively through testimonials, but there is no way to check if these are legitimate or edited for content. These testimonials are always glowing and positive, which is one of the major drawbacks to using testimonials; it’s deceiving and engenders the idea that your work with cult members is superior, always successful, and has better outcomes than any other approach. This is why professional organizations such as the APA (American Psychological Association) have discouraged reliance upon testimonials. In contrast, one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience is an overreliance on such anecdotal evidence, rather than scientific study.

Hassan's website is indeed chockablock full of "testimonials" and anecdotes, but nothing in the way of "a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results or what constitutes a successful SIA type of family work with a cult member."

Quote

In Chapter 13, the last chapter in the book, Hassan conjures up possible solutions to the “cult problem”. First, he suggests more involvement by the legal system. Apparently, he doesn’t realize that the legal system is already actively involved in sorting through cult issues. Perhaps Mr Hassan’s ignorance of this fact is because he has never testified in any legal proceeding.

Yes, self-styled "experts" are often not particularly well-informed about the subject matter at hand.

Quote

Second, Hassan calls for action by mental health professionals to join the “cause,” and that they should be trained in his SIA approach. However, such training would be of questionable value and essentially redundant, since SIA is merely family system, which is quite familiar to mental health professionals. In what appears to be a contradiction, he also states that people can use his book to develop their own approach, working with their family members themselves. Why then the need to gather a group of mental health professionals under Mr Hassan’s guidance if families can do this independently? He seems to contradict himself.

That's a fair question.

Quote

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 honour, 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. 

Oi.

One other interesting tidbit about Hassan:

Quote

Combating Cult Mind Control is a nonfiction book by Steven Hassan, first published in 1988. The book presents itself as a guide to resisting the mind control practices of destructive cults, and focuses on the research of Margaret Singer and Robert Lifton as well as the cognitive dissonance theory of Leon Festinger. Hassan published a revised edition in 2015 which updated information on organizations that he alleges practice mind control and use social media to increase their influence.
...
John B. Brown II of the "Pagan Unity Campaign" suggests that Hassan's statement that he had "decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach" (p. 114) is contradicted by the statement in the 1988 edition that "Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail."^[9]

So is Hassan in favor of "forcible interventions" or not?

Quote

Irving Hexham, professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, writes that Hassan's description of destructive cults (page 37), as "a group which violates the rights of its members and damages them through the abusive techniques of unethical mind control" is not helpful.^[11] According to Hexham, "the problem with definitions like this is that they raise more problems than they solve. Before we can decide whether a group is a cult or not, we must first define 'rights,' 'abusive techniques,' and 'mind control.' Hassan attempts to do this, but his explanations are not very helpful."

Indeed, Hassan is not very helpful.

And Roger is here, praising his work to the skies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Quote

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?

Sorry, I mis-typed.  I meant my wife's cousin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

I've always thought that my missionary service was rather analogous to the monastic traditions of our Catholic cousins. In both, we find hierarchy, routinized schedules, and a cloistering from worldly trends and activities.

So, if Smac's Army analogy doesn't land for you, how about Catholic monasticsm? Does that tradition fall within the cultic confines of this metric? What about the monastic traditions of other faith groups? What is it about LDS missionary life that makes it cult-like, while leaving the well-established and highly-respected monastic traditions of other religions free from that stigma?

If monastic traditions do indeed receive the opprobrium of being cultic, then I shrug my shoulders and move on. That's good company to be in, and I won't lose any sleep over it.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not a bug, but a feature of Hassan's reasoning.  It's malleable.  People like Roger can arbitrarily apply it, or not apply it, at their preference.  And Roger can then declare that this arbitrary application is authoritative and helpful because a (self-designated) "cult expert" came up with its (notably vague, overgeneralized, subjective, value-judgment-laden) parameters.

And who can argue with Steve Hassan?  The man is credentialed!  He has an undergrad in poetry and a Ph.D in Organizational Development and Change!  And he's a former Moonie!

These days, Hassan is plying his self-described "cult expert" trade to . . . politics (I'll give you three guesses which notably orange political figure has been in his crosshairs).  Doing so requires Hassan to utilize, as this article puts it, "expansive definition of cult" and his "scientifically debated terms like brainwashing."

This article also comments on Hassan:

"Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense."

Hmm.

Unlike Hassan, the author of this piece, Cathleen A. Mann, has a Ph.D in psychology. 

Also unlike Hassan, 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."

Also unlike Hassan, I have no idea what she has to say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She continues:

"{T}o frighten people and provide him with a marketing tool to sell books."

Hmm.

She goes on to critique Hassan's nebulous usage of "cult":

"{A}lmost all cult educators and experts don’t focus on beliefs, but rather on harmful practices."

Fortunately, we have Roger here to pick up where Hassan has failed.  Roger has identified the Church's "harmful practices," such as rules limiting missionaries from "vacations," full-court basketball, and requiring them to get 8 hours of sleep every day.  

Comme c'est terrible!  How do the Brethren sleep at night, knowing that these "harmful practices" are being inflicted on missionaries!

Mann continues:

Hassan using risible, provocative terminology, as an erstwhile "expert" on "cults" (which putative expertise is also apparently his primary source of income)?  Who saw that coming?

Mann continues:

(Emphasis added.)

Fortunately, Roger has provided the answer to Mann's question.  "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?"  The answer, of course, is Roger has recognized him as an expert.  Ipso facto...

Mann continues:

(Emphasis added.)

Not only has Mr. Hassan failed to persuade a single judge in the United States of his supposed expertise, he apparently can't even find a publisher willing to go along with the idea.

Mann continues:

Steve Hassan: The Cultist Whisperer!

(Emphasis added.)

Mr. Hassan is, it seems, Jewish.  I wonder if he would go along with labeling Judaism a "cult," what with it's rabbinical leaders, constraints on diet, sexuality, etc.  I certainly wouldn't.  I also doubt Roger would label Jews as cultists.

(Emphases added.)

Hassan failed to give proper attribution?  "Something akin to plagiarism?"  Who could've seen that coming?

(Emphasis added.)

Boy, Roger.  You sure know how to pick 'em.

(Emphases added.)

Oi.

Fortunately, Roger is here to assure us that Hassan's book is "serious." And Hassan has been endorsed by the guy who created the Stanford Prison Experiment, which - as we all know - is the benchmark of ethical research in psychological circles.

I guess that's all we need to know.

"{Danger stemming from a lack of informed consent} is often cited concerning the questionable behaviour of cults and should apply to those attempting to help cult members as well."  "Those attempting..." including, presumably, Steve Hassan.

(Emphasis added.)

Roger says Hassan "create{d} his model."  Apparently not.

Hassan's website is indeed chockablock full of "testimonials" and anecdotes, but nothing in the way of "a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results or what constitutes a successful SIA type of family work with a cult member."

Yes, self-styled "experts" are often not particularly well-informed about the subject matter at hand.

That's a fair question.

Oi.

One other interesting tidbit about Hassan:

So is Hassan in favor of "forcible interventions" or not?

Indeed, Hassan is not very helpful.

And Roger is here, praising his work to the skies.

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw he was stating that MAGA is a cult.  That kind of watering down of the definition can't be good for his brand.

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Are people free to quit missions?

Yes. I have a cousin who came home early from a mission in the 90s. I haven’t seen him in a while, but I don’t think we had him taken out and shot.
 

In my ward, we’ve had two missionaries come back early in the last handful of years. I saw one of them last week.  
 

Are you using some sort of nonstandard definition for “free to quit“? Maybe you think it can’t be free if it’s hard, or if it comes with consequences, or something?

 

 

[Calm]

So I saw one critic on an exmormon site state that the BITE model had one publication in a peer reviewed journal in all the years it has been around.  I am curious if that is true.  If so, it sounds more fringe than mainstream itself.

Okay, I had to post this one comment because it made me laugh, Dr. Phil was a hardship for me as my mother liked him for a bit and I spent a lot of time reading stuff that I didn’t want to read to try and give it a fair appraisal (I was her “check the science guy”).  I have no clue about the accuracy, no knowledge about this writer.

Quote

I would be laughed out of my graduate level religion studies courses if I ever brought up the BITE Model. It's an infotainment methodology designed for Dr. Phil and other daytime soap operas. It doesn't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw he was stating that MAGA is a cult.  That kind of watering down of the definition can't be good for his brand.

Yep.  "MAGA" is a slogan, not a group (or, at least, it's not a useful replacement for "Republican").  It's also an increasingly ineffective dig at Mr. Trump's supporters, since they don't care about the label, and his opponents frequently overplay it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Analogies to the Army are apt because both institutions (it and the Church) impose considerable, but very short-term, restrictions on trainees, and thereafter ease up on those restrictions considerably.  

Nobody characterizes the Army as a "cult" for doing this.

Actually, Zimbardo has. That’s my point. Zimbardo is a fully qualified expert witness, and testified in court that the Army practices destructive mind control.

Can you see the irony now?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, a 2-8 week stay at the MTC, which involves three square meals, clean living, hymns, scripture study, and is entirely voluntary, renders the Church a "cult."

I never said a 2-8 week stay at the MTC renders the church a cult. Why do you feel the need to represent what I’m saying?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

The same "Philip G. Zimbardo" who crafted the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment?  

Yes, that’s the guy.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your choices of adjudicators of moral and ethical judgment continue to not impress.

I never said or implied anything about my choices of adjudicators of moral and ethical judgment. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I’m saying?

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

So Hassan's expertise and competency as a self-described "cult expert" is established because some other credentialed fellow wrote a dust jacket blurb on one of Hassan's books?

No. But it is an impressive recommendation. Ultimately, I think Hassan’s arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, but I can only discuss that with people  who are willing to actually read them. 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh.

And Frederick ended up being sentenced to eight years in prison.

Correct.

Originally you were implying that we should only listen to people who have been officially qualified as an expert witness. Now you are moving the bar and implying that we should only listen to qualified expert witnesses who have never testified in a case on behalf of a party that lost the case, right? 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Zimbardo's expertise in the Stanford Prison Experiment (!) and Abu Ghraib are somehow exportable to Steve Hassan's assessment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No, no, and no. Zimbardo’s expert witness testimony is ironic, because:

1- He is a fully qualified expert witness

2- He testified that the military uses destructive mind control techniques

Furthermore, as far as I know Steve Hassan has never assessed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?  

No, that’s not what I’m saying. 

What I’m saying is that if you were to actually read what Dr. Hassan says, there are spectrums of healthy and unhealthy ways groups try to influence you, and the degree to which the influences are healthy or unhealthy depend a lot upon the specific situations of the individuals involved. The BITE model isn’t intended to make a black-and-white determination of whether or not a group is a “cult.” The point is to help people evaluate patterns of undue influence that can compromise your ability to truly think freely.

Based on the article, I believe that Dan Reynolds agrees with this way of thinking.

On a scale of 1 to 10 on the spectrum of how intensely the Church employees “cult mind control” tactics, I gave it a 3 or 4. Notice that is lower than giving it a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. In contrast, I’d give the FLDS Church a 10. Based on what I’ve heard, I’d give the army’s basic training program a 7 or 8.

I think when Reynolds says he wants to not manipulate his kids, he wants to raise them on that spectrum with more:

• Authentic self
• Unconditional love
• Compassion
• Conscience
• Creativity and humor
• Free will/critical thinking

And with less:

• Identity coming from the Church
• Conditional “love"
• Judgementalism
• Doctrine
• Solemnity, fear and guilt
• Dependency and obedience

The reason I entered this thread is because you had said, "Teaching someone what you sincerely believe is the best way to live or the best spiritual path is not manipulation.” I think that is what misses the point. Reynolds isn’t talking about the parents sincerity. He is talking about using “cult mind control tactics” that try to manipulate people by controlling their emotions, feelings, and the information they are given access to.

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Reiterating the point, the question isn’t to answer the binary question of whether or not the Church is a “cult.” The question is to answer the extent to which they use destructive mind control.

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, that would be like that, but you are replying to a straw man, not to anything that Hassan or I ever said.

 

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  "MAGA" is a slogan, not a group (or, at least, it's not a useful replacement for "Republican").  It's also an increasingly ineffective dig at Mr. Trump's supporters, since they don't care about the label, and his opponents frequently overplay it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I always thought it was simply a way to distinguish Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene from Republicans like Mitch Romney.

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, that would be like that, but you are replying to a straw man, not to anything that Hassan or I ever said

That's EXACTLY what you're saying- you're just too blinded by your antagonism towards the Church to see it.

Edited July 10, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yes. I have a cousin who came home early from a mission in the 90s. I haven’t seen him in a while, but I don’t think we had him taken out and shot.

In my ward, we’ve had two missionaries come back early in the last handful of years. I saw one of them last week.  

Are you using some sort of nonstandard definition for “free to quit“? Maybe you think it can’t be free if it’s hard, or if it comes with consequences, or something?

Earlier on this thread, Smac said that missionaries are free to leave any time for any reason or for no reason at all.

In every job I’ve ever had, I was told that in writing. However, missionary calls don’t say that you are free to quit your mission at any time for any reason, do they? Missionaries are never given instructions on how to resign from their missions if they so choose, are they?

The Accidental Terrorist tells the true story of a couple of missionaries who wanted to quit and the extreme lengths the Church went to in order to prevent them. The climax of the story is that when a missionary snuck away to the airport and was going home. He was already through security when his companion called the mission president and told him the missionary was escaping. The mission president was racing to the airport in order to talk the individual out of his decision, and the companion was instructed to delay the plane taking off long enough for the mission president to get there. In an act of desperation to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president had a chance to talk him out of it, the companion called up the airline and said, “There’s a bomb in a suitcase on Flight 789."

In any case, not being “free to leave” doesn’t mean you are literally physically restrained from leaving. Rather, the opposite of being free to leave is being indoctrinated that there are no legitimate reasons to leave. 

Is there a page in the missionary handbook that says something like the following? “You are free to leave your mission at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Here is the process to leave. There are in fact many legitimate reasons to leave which include the following....”

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Analytics

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Accidental Terrorist tells the true story of a couple of missionaries who wanted to quit and the extreme lengths the Church went to in order to prevent them. The climax of the story is that when a missionary snuck away to the airport and was going home. He was already through security when his companion called the mission president and told him the missionary was escaping. The mission president was racing to the airport in order to talk the individual out of his decision, and the companion was instructed to delay the plane taking off long enough for the mission president to get there. In an act of desperation to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president had a chance to talk him out of it, the companion called up the airline and said, “There’s a bomb in a suitcase on Flight 789."

 

Are you arguing that this single, extreme event is representative of how difficult missions are to leave generally?  Are you really extrapolating from this one, extreme outlier of an event onto the hundreds of other mission presidents and tens of thousands of other missionaries?  That's pretty shaky logic, even for you.

[Analytics]

45 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That's EXACTLY what you're saying- you're just too blinded by your antagonism towards the Church to see it.

I would gently suggest that I’m an expert on my own opinions.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Analytics said:

I would gently suggest that I’m an expert on my own opinions.

Implying that the Church even remotely approximates groups like the Children of God, Davidians, FLDS, etc... shows your "expertise" fairly lacking.

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Are you arguing that this single, extreme event is representative of how difficult missions are to leave generally?  Are you really extrapolating from this one, extreme outlier of an event onto the hundreds of other mission presidents and tens of thousands of other missionaries?  That's pretty shaky logic, even for you.

Calling in the bomb threat was ridiculously extreme, but that’s only one page in the book. The full title of the book is The Accidental Terrorist: Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary. It’s the detailed story of his mission that tells about the missionaries he interacted with and the psychological and sociological pressure that get people to go on missions, and then the barriers that keep people from quitting once they are out there. The missionary who called in the bomb threat took pretty extreme actions to quit his own mission a few months earlier, but the Church deployed even more extreme manipulation to get him to stay. Then he eventually drank the Kool-Aid and refused to let anybody make the “mistake" he tried to make himself.

If you want to hear an honest missionary story, read the book.

[Calm]

On 7/10/2024 at 6:17 AM, Analytics said:

That’s my point. Zimbardo is a fully qualified expert witness, and testified in court that the Army practices destructive mind control.

Can you see the irony now?

But was this accepted as a valid argument by anyone in the court?  Since the defendant was found guilty?  Not wanting to step into the debate between you and Smac, but I am wondering given what I have read last night and in the past on the BITE model not being peer reviewed or experimentally verified, significantly predictive, etc. how much weight I should give it.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Implying that the Church even remotely approximates groups like the Children of God, Davidians, FLDS, etc... shows your "expertise" fairly lacking.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I said the FLDS etc. are a 10, while the mainstream LDS Church is a 3 or 4. A “3 or 4” isn’t a remote approximation of a 10. I don’t know if your problem is your reading comprehension skills or your math skills.

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But was this brought as a valid argument by anyone?

As a fully qualified and admitted expert witness, Zimbardo testified in court that the military psychologically manipulated the prison guards to the point they couldn’t be held responsible for their actions.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, I said the FLDS etc. are a 10, while the mainstream LDS Church is a 3 or 4. A “3 or 4” isn’t a remote approximation of a 10. I don’t know if your problem is your reading comprehension skills or your math skills.

How you describe the Church in your posts tells a VASTLY different story than your protestations here.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How you describe the Church in your posts tells a VASTLY different story than your protestations here.

Actually, your history suggests you are being reactionary and filling in the blanks with your own version of what you believe motivates the person posting what they have.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

As a fully qualified and admitted expert witness, Zimbardo testified in court that the military psychologically manipulated the prison guards to the point they couldn’t be held responsible for their actions.

Is there a court decision issued that explains how the court took his comment?  Maybe Smac knows how to access it easily as I am too lazy to google…though I might in a bit, so don’t bother to look for it unless you know where it is already.   

To be blunt, my guess is the prosecution offered up another fully qualified and admitted expert witness who argued against this claim.  And my guess is the defendant’s lawyer expert shopped until he found an expert willing to say this.***

So if this claim has only been used once in court and that one time was rejected by the court as a valid argument (this is why the court judgment would be more useful imo than just stating that is what the expert claimed) and even the expert has not repeated the claim, I don’t find this instance that impressive myself.

Repeated claims by an expert and more than one would be better (my guess is if the defending council could have found another expert to say the same thing, they would have put them on the stand…but perhaps their budget didn’t allow that as experts aren’t volunteers), especially if persuasive to the court.

***just meaning here that court cases often involve opposing experts as far as I am aware so one expert saying ‘yes, it’s a cult’ likely means at least another saying ‘no, it’s not’.  Simply being labeled an expert by the court is not sufficient therefore imo since there are likely opposing viewpoints from the experts presented.  Finding out why the experts hold their views or being able to compare credentials, experience, etc is essential imo if wanting to use a court case as evidence in an argument.

Having multiple experts would be more impressive as showing a view is more widely accepted, but budgets are limited, so for me to expect multiple expert witnesses to be offered in any case is unreasonable, even if ideal for the purpose.  In no way am I implying expert witnesses will generally change their testimony if paid enough.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if this claim has only been used once in court and that one time was rejected by the court as a valid argument (this is why the court judgment would be more useful imo than just stating that is what the expert claimed) and even the expert has not repeated the claim, I don’t find this instance that impressive myself.

I didn’t say it was impressive. I said it was ironic. 

Smac went on and on about how Hassan shouldn’t be believed because (according to Smac), Hassan’s expert testimony has never been admitted in court. He also went on and on about how the BITE model isn’t valid because nobody accuses the military of using destructive mind control tactics. 

It just so happens that an expert witness has in fact testified in court that the military does use destructive mind control tactics.

That’s ironic. 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Analytics