Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

we will pay for you to see the counselor of your choice. The counselor can be anybody you choose, including people inside and outside the Church.

Given the variation of the quality of counselors as well as the variation in costs (maybe members who are professionals will donate their work for missionaries or at least give at cost or quite a good deal), I do believe the Church should have a right to refuse to pay for the missionary at least if the counselor they choose is known to try to persuade missionaries to leave.  I have no problem with hoping the Church would provide the option of counselors who weren’t members but known to respect the beliefs and practices.  It is not unknown for frustrated missionaries to got to antimormon communities for advice which is freely offered and I can see suggestions to go to a particular counselor who was known to be antimormon quickly forthcoming.

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2024 at 9:04 PM, smac97 said:

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

My son is a career Marine. He may beg to differ regarding your comment above.

[let’s roll]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Responding to your points in reverse order, I think it is great that you were able to talk to your daughter and she is working things out, and I think it is great that BYU students can see mental health professionals.

On your first question, I don’t “have a problem” per se with what mission presidents are instructed to do. I know they are trying to do what is best. However, what they are instructed to do is another brick in the wall that supports my overall point that the missionary program is extremely manipulative.

Based on Smac97’s recommendation, last night I listened to a podcast where Steven Hassan interviewed John Dehlin for Hassan’s podcast. It’s about the second time I’ve listened to a Dehlin podcast, and the first time I’ve interacted with Hassan since I introduced him to Mormonism 20+ years ago. Something John and Steven both said was that they had no problem with the doctrine and practice of Mormonism or of any other religion; their problem is with using coercive manipulation tactics (i.e. what Steven unfortunately calls “cult mind control”) to apply undue psychological pressure to get people to join and stick with a program.

What would the process look like without manipulation? It would be something like this:

“If a missionary is determined to leave, tell him that missionary work isn’t for everyone and he is free to leave. However, make him the following offer: to ensure you make the best decision for yourself without undue influence from others, we will pay for you to see the counselor of your choice. The counselor can be anybody you choose, including people inside and outside the Church. You can meet with the counselor for as long or as little as you choose, and you can finalize your decision about whether to stay or go at any time. Of course you are also free to talk to me, your stake president, your bishop, and your parents about this decision if you want. Here is your passport. Would you like to talk to somebody about this, or should we start assisting you with travel arrangements?"

 

I wouldn’t have any issue with an MP using your suggested approach.  That said, the only element of that approach that is materially different from the guidance given to MPs you cited earlier is the missionary selected counselor.  
 

Your suggested approach is to be used “if the missionary is determined to leave.”  I don’t think a MP would conclude a missionary was determined to leave until the missionary had already done most of what is in your “offer” i.e., discussed it with their parents, the MP, their home Bishop and/or SP if they choose to do so, or anyone else they wanted to, and an AMHA or Family Services counselor.  I have worked with a number of AMHAs and have a child who is a Family Services counselor who has worked with hundreds of missionaries over the last 10+ years.  They are all committed to doing what is best for the missionary, which is not always having the missionary stay in the mission field.  

Telling a missionary that they can select any counselor they want reenforces the fact that the decision is ultimately theirs and theirs alone which, of course it is, but I’m not sure telling a missionary they can choose their own counselor would make much difference as a practical matter…most would have no experience with, or idea how to screen and select a counselor and thus the offer in most cases  wouldn’t result in the missionary selecting a counselor but might have the unintended consequence of increase the missionary’s anxiety level.  
 

My experience is that Deity shares Divine wisdom with all who seek it with the requisite intent.  I seek that wisdom directly from Deity.  I also listen to invitations from others, including Church leaders, ponder and pray about those invitations, and follow the promptings that flow from that process.  The responsibility for my discipleship is mine, and mine alone.  I don’t outsource it to anyone, including Church leaders.  I think that approach is laid out in both ancient and modern scripture, and while it has, at times, led me to approach some things in a manner different than other disciples, I have never had any pushback from Church leaders for doing so.   Thus, while I have no doubt that some have felt manipulated by family, friends and leaders in matters of the “church,” l haven’t.  My invitation to those who have is that rather than trying to replace what you understand to be one man made construct that didn’t work for you with another man made construct, turn to the Divine.

 

 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

My son is a career Marine. He may beg to differ regarding your comment above.

Feel free to have him post his comments, or post them for him.

Are you saying your son feels that the Marine Corps is a "cult"?  Or is that he would argue that the regimen trainees experience in the Corps' 13-week boot camp are not subsequently "ease{d} up on"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

“If a missionary is determined to leave, tell him that missionary work isn’t for everyone and he is free to leave. However, make him the following offer: to ensure you make the best decision for yourself without undue influence from others, we will pay for you to see the counselor of your choice. The counselor can be anybody you choose, including people inside and outside the Church. You can meet with the counselor for as long or as little as you choose, and you can finalize your decision about whether to stay or go at any time. Of course you are also free to talk to me, your stake president, your bishop, and your parents about this decision if you want. Here is your passport. Would you like to talk to somebody about this, or should we start assisting you with travel arrangements?"

A missionary would have no idea how to choose a therapist for this and most therapists would be ill-equipped to handle this kind of question.

[Analytics]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the variation of the quality of counselors as well as the variation in costs (maybe members who are professionals will donate their work for missionaries or at least give at cost or quite a good deal), I do believe the Church should have a right to refuse to pay for the missionary at least if the counselor they choose is known to try to persuade missionaries to leave.  I have no problem with hoping the Church would provide the option of counselors who weren’t members but known to respect the beliefs and practices.  It is not unknown for frustrated missionaries to got to antimormon communities for advice which is freely offered and I can see suggestions to go to a particular counselor who was known to be antimormon quickly forthcoming.

My example was a theoretical proposal intended to illustrate what a free process would look like with no manipulation whatsoever. If we were talking about a serious proposal to be considered by actual decision makers, of course some practical limitations would have to be placed on this.

It’s unreasonable to ask the Church to pay for the services of an unqualified, overpriced, anti-Mormon counselor. But if the individual has become frustrated or disillusioned with the church or with the mission experience, a free mind should be free to talk to other people who have been there and decided it wasn’t for them.

 

 

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I wouldn’t have any issue with an MP using your suggested approach.  That said, the only element of that approach that is materially different from the guidance given to MPs you cited earlier is the missionary selected counselor.  

Your suggested approach is to be used “if the missionary is determined to leave.”  I don’t think a MP would conclude a missionary was determined to leave until the missionary had already done most of what is in your “offer” i.e., discussed it with their parents, the MP, their home Bishop and/or SP if they choose to do so, or anyone else they wanted to, and an AMHA or Family Services counselor....

Let me put what the Mission President Handbook says in context. The Handbook itself says “if a missionary is determined to return home,” then the mission president should do items 2 through 20 on that list. The purpose of that is for the mission president to “do all he can” to convince the missionary to stay. After going through the first 20 ways of trying to convince the missionary to stay, item #21 is to "ask your Missionary Department In-Field Services representative for further instructions.” 

Of course the missionary has the legal right to leave any time he wants to. He can do that at any point (presuming the mission gives him his own passport back). However, the  mission president isn’t supposed to say he is free to walk away until he’s tried everything listed in the handbook and talked to HQ about any last-ditch efforts.

That process is engineered for the mission president to “do all he can” to talk the missionary out of leaving.

38 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

 I have worked with a number of AMHAs and have a child who is a Family Services counselor who has worked with hundreds of missionaries over the last 10+ years.  They are all committed to doing what is best for the missionary, which is not always having the missionary stay in the mission field.  

That's great to hear, and I’m certain the Church has dramatically improved in this regard.

I have no doubt that the various counselors you have worked with are all committed to doing what is best for the missionary. Likewise, I’m sure the parents, bishop, stake president, mission president, area presidency, and in-field service representatives all want to do what is best for the missionary as well.

However, making a sincere effort to “do what is best” for the missionary isn’t the same thing as encouraging him and empowering him to make his life’s decisions with a free mind. 

Remember how we got here. Dan Reynolds said in People magazine:

“My greatest goal every day is to not manipulate my kids. I really don’t want to try to tell them what their spiritual path should be. I give them my thoughts and obviously try to protect them and take care of them, while also making sure they have freedom and agency to choose whatever they want.”

My only goal in this thread is to help explain what I think Reynolds meant by that.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to have him post his comments, or post them for him.

Are you saying your son feels that the Marine Corps is a "cult"?  Or is that he would argue that the regimen trainees experience in the Corps' 13-week boot camp are not subsequently "ease{d} up on"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would be happy to ask him more details but he has commented that as a career Marine he has come to see cult like behavior on the approach the military takes to managing their troops as well as warfare.  But I am not certain he views it negatively.  Likely more a necessity given the nature of our militaries mission. These are passing comments and he has made. And he also believes the experience of a career military member is much different than someone who serves four years.  I think he sees more beneath the hood so to speak.

[ZealouslyStriving]

We are told:

Doctrine and Covenants 5

"14 And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

So....

 

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A missionary would have no idea how to choose a therapist for this and most therapists would be ill-equipped to handle this kind of question.

You are correct, as are the other people who made this same point. What I said isn’t a proposal intended to be taken seriously by the Church as written. It was written to give an idea of what encouraging a free decision would look like.

If we wanted to make this practical, mission presidents could all be given a list of counselors with brief bios about them. The list would include counselors the Church likes, and would also include John Dehlin, Steven Hassan, and others who have some background on the type of pressure the missionaries are under.

Of course the Church actually doing something like this is about as likely as the Church adding to the missionary discussions a detailed explanation of garments and allowing investigators to walk around in garments for a few days before committing to go down this path.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would be happy to ask him more details but he has commented that as a career Marine he has come to see cult like behavior on the approach the military takes to managing their troops as well as warfare. 

This presupposes a static an commonly-understood and -accepted meaning of "cult like behavior."

I have long valued this interesting portion of Daniel C. Peterson's and Stephen D. Ricks' Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-Day Saints: 

Mormonism as "Cult": The Limits of Lexical Polemics

An excerpt:

Quote

The powerful emotional impact of the four-letter word “cult”—carried even in its short, explosive, violent sound4—is illustrated by two recent letters to the Biblical Archaeology Review, in which the magazine is taken to task for having referred to the presumed site of Joshua’s temple as a “cultic center.” One reader objects: “Cult conjures up images of evil men deceiving people and leading them off into foolish error. When I read about the Mt. Ebal altar, I don’t want Jim Jones jumping out at me.” Complains another: “When you worship the true and the living God, you are not engaged in a cultic ritual.” (Ironically, of course, these readers protest a use of the term that goes back to at least the seventeenth century, and which is precisely that of the Latin cultus. It is the polemical use of the word “cult” that finds no sanction in the Oxford English Dictionary.)5 The term’s impact is further illustrated in a classified advertisement routinely appearing in the respected evangelical publication, Christianity Today. “Mormonism is a cult!” it proclaims. “See why.” Those curious to discover why will be sent The Utah Evangel, an anti-Mormon tabloid.  (Would the impact of the advertisement be as great if it read, “Mormonism is a religious denomination! See why”?)6 A recent letter to The Evangel (successor to the Utah Evangel) leaves little doubt about the word’s connotations: “I refuse to capitalize the word, mormon, for to us, this is nothing but a cult, and not worthy of being honored in this manner.”7

Not knowing your son, it is difficult to ascertain whether he is using "cult" for its popular (that is to say, pejorative / polemical) sense, such as is described above, or for its clinical, objective, academic sense.  

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I am not certain he views it negatively.  Likely more a necessity given the nature of our militaries mission.

Of the "necessity" of the purported "cult like behavior" obviates that negativeness of that behavior?

Is this one of those the ends justify the means sort of things?  Or do you (and/or your son) believe that "cult like behavior" is not intrinsically bad, and must be examined within its own context?

For example, I found Basic Training to be an understandably necessary "crash course" to re-orient young trainees away from whatever lifestyle and behavioral systems they came from, and directed toward life as enlisted men in the U.S. Army (my Basic Training was in 1991, when it was still sex-segregated).

18 months later, I found the MTC to also be an understandably necessary "crash course" to re-orient young men and women away from whatever lifestyle and behavioral systems they came from, and directed toward life as missionaries representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I found neither to be inherently immoral or coercive environments.  Everyone had volunteered.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

These are passing comments and he has made. And he also believes the experience of a career military member is much different than someone who serves four years. 

No doubt.  The Marines are, I understanding, considerably more hard core than the other branches.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think he sees more beneath the hood so to speak.

I am curious if other Marines believe they are a "cult."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would be happy to ask him more details but he has commented that as a career Marine he has come to see cult like behavior on the approach the military takes to managing their troops as well as warfare.  But I am not certain he views it negatively.  Likely more a necessity given the nature of our militaries mission. These are passing comments and he has made. And he also believes the experience of a career military member is much different than someone who serves four years.  I think he sees more beneath the hood so to speak.

To use the BITE model to evaluate how much “destructive mind control” (Steve Hassan’s words) the military uses, we need to apply the BITE model to the experience in its entirety. I’ve never been in the military, but my impression is that with a heavy hand, they do in fact control the Behavior, Thoughts, and Emotions of people during basic training and beyond, depending upon what your military job is.

However, the big difference I see between the military and being indoctrinated into the Church is the Information provided. If you go to basic training or BUD/S training or Ranger School, you know you are going to be yelled at. Manipulated. Physically pushed beyond reasonable limits. Sleep deprived. Starved. In the latter two cases, you know you are literally going to be tortured. They are going to do all of this to change your body, mind, thought processes, and emotional processes so that you transformed from a normal human being into a lean, mean, fighting machine. That is the whole point.

Here is the difference between that and the Church: In the military, all of that is completely disclosed up front, in detail. This information is given. People join these programs with their eyes wide open. They are given enough information to consent to the program they are committing to.

In contrast, the Church controls information people have access to as much as it can. The manipulation starts from infancy when children sing about how they I Hope They Call Me on a Mission, and from when they start making covenants with the Church when they are 8 years old. They don’t go because they freely decide to go. They go because they’re told they have been commanded by God(!) to go. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are correct, as are the other people who made this same point. What I said isn’t a proposal intended to be taken seriously by the Church as written. It was written to give an idea of what encouraging a free decision would look like.

If we wanted to make this practical, mission presidents could all be given a list of counselors with brief bios about them. The list would include counselors the Church likes, and would also include John Dehlin, Steven Hassan, and others who have some background on the type of pressure the missionaries are under.

Of course the Church actually doing something like this is about as likely as the Church adding to the missionary discussions a detailed explanation of garments and allowing investigators to walk around in garments for a few days before committing to go down this path.

I think it would be more reasonable to expect the Church to go along with it if the counselors were faithful members who had been missionaries who had been in their situation and then resolved it in multiple ways, including going home early, both positive and negative experiences and the missionaries who chose to stay.  Maybe start out in a group and then the current missionary decides who they want to privately discuss it.  It would likely have to be online discussion unfortunately.  Help with a counselor is often more about the relationship.

As for voices that are critical, any missionary can find that online easily enough.   I think the MP telling the missionary that they won’t penalize or think less of the missionary if they go there, but also be honest if they would prefer the missionary not to would be better than trying to lock the tech from accessing such. 

Just continuing the thought experiment…

Edited July 11 by Calm

[let’s roll]

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That process is engineered for the mission president to “do all he can” to talk the missionary out of leaving.

Thanks for your responses.  
 

Some final comments: 

* I think your comments on the guidance given to MPs begins with what I believe is a false premise.  Having dealt with scores of MPs, I believe most, if not all, understand the purpose of the guidance is to help MPs “do all they can” to help missionaries make an informed, well-considered and prayerful decision about remaining in the mission, not to have the MP “do all they can” to have the missionary stay in the field.

* I’m aware of situations where counselors have provided missionaries contact information for former missionaries who made the decision to leave the mission field early and have agreed to share their experiences with current missionaries. 
 

*Your struggle to craft something that you would consider non-manipulative and also practical illustrates that attempts to navigate  situations like these that are inherently unique, difficult and emotional are always a bit ad hoc. Thus the best results are reached when all involved exercise compassion and grace to each other.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

As for voices that are critical, any missionary can find that online easily enough.  

Do missionaries have open access to the internet?

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do missionaries have open access to the internet?

 

I have no clue, I just know I see people claiming to be missionaries all the time on the exmormon sites when I am doing research.  A few said they were on there all the time, so if they were telling the truth it seems if there is a will there is a way. 

Edited July 11 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no clue, I just know I see people claiming to be missionaries all the time on the exmormon sites when I am doing research.  A few said they were on there all the time, so if they were telling the truth it seems if there is a will there is a way. 

They are permitted to post on Facebook. I'm sure Dehlin et al have their hate groups set up there.

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This presupposes a static an commonly-understood and -accepted meaning of "cult like behavior."

I have long valued this interesting portion of Daniel C. Peterson's and Stephen D. Ricks' Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-Day Saints: 

Mormonism as "Cult": The Limits of Lexical Polemics

An excerpt...

For the sake of clarity, in the book you cite, Peterson is responding to the Evangelical anti-cultists of the 70’s and 80’s such as Walter Martin who defined “cult” as a form of religion that deviated “from a presumed standard of Christian orthodoxy.” Further, Peterson acknowledges that sociologists use the word “cult” to describe religions with a certain level of tension with their surrounding societies.

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with what Steven Hassan says in his book about empowering people to think for themselves. Hassan refers to “cult mind control” as any organization that psychologically manipulates people by controlling their Behavior, the Information they are exposed to, their Thoughts, and their Emotions. This type of manipulation happens on a continuum. It is a well-defined psychological phenomenon. Personally, I really dislike the phrase “cult mind control” in part because it uses a definition of “cult” that differs from the sociological definition and from the evangelical one. However, I used the term in the context of referring to Hassan’s model to be clear what it is I’m talking about.

The extent to which the military uses “cult mind control” as defined by Hassan should be based on properly evaluating it through the BITE model, not by axiomatically declaring that it doesn’t use cult mind control because it is the military (USA!).

FWIW, Hassan says the following about military on page 115 of Releasing the Bonds:

The military is an example of a highly structured, pyramid-shaped organization. There is a strict hierarchy. Soldiers are assigned numbers, given haircuts and uniforms, instructed in ways of talking, walking, marching and fighting. It is a career where personal choice is much more restricted than in society at large. In boot camp training, particularly in the Marines, the SEALs and other Special Forces, the use of mind control techniques is considered essential to create the identity of an elite soldier.

But unlike a destructive cult, the military is accepted and valued by society. Military leaders answer to other branches of the government in a democracy. The military is also governed by ethical codes and structural checks and balances. People join the military for a specified length of time, and receive pay and benefits. With a few unfortunate exceptions, the military does not use deception in recruitment. When people join the military, they know what will be expected of them. Soldiers are encouraged to maintain contact with their family and friends, and vacation time is given annually.

When people endure rigorous training such as medical school, law school, the military, or seminary, they are making a conscious choice to become a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier, or a priest. This training ehnaces their sense of identity, offers knowledge and skills and affords a variety of benefits. When a person is deceptively recruited into a destructive cult, the leaders immediately begin a process of tearing down, rejecting, and reprogramming the person’s authentic identity. The person loses his free will. He does not receive many personal benefits, and there is no institutional way to exit with honor.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do missionaries have open access to the internet?

 

I would guess almost all do.  There are probably some areas that are so remote that it's not possible but every missionary that I'm aware of personally is asked to go out into the mission field with their own android phone and they all spend some time during the week online.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would guess almost all do.  There are probably some areas that are so remote that it's not possible but every missionary that I'm aware of personally is asked to go out into the mission field with their own android phone and they all spend some time during the week online.

My understanding is that these phones are loaded with a mandatory management app. Once loaded access is restricted to Facebook messenger and a handful of church approved apps and websites. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no clue, I just know I see people claiming to be missionaries all the time on the exmormon sites when I am doing research.  A few said they were on there all the time, so if they were telling the truth it seems if there is a will there is a way. 

These missionaries are online by bypassing mission rules. Perhaps by visiting the library. All possible assuming your companion is willing. But certainly not church supported or approved. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For the sake of clarity, in the book you cite, Peterson is responding to the Evangelical anti-cultists of the 70’s and 80’s such as Walter Martin who defined “cult” as a form of religion that deviated “from a presumed standard of Christian orthodoxy.” Further, Peterson acknowledges that sociologists use the word “cult” to describe religions with a certain level of tension with their surrounding societies.

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with what Steven Hassan says in his book about empowering people to think for themselves. Hassan refers to “cult mind control” as any organization that psychologically manipulates people by controlling their Behavior, the Information they are exposed to, their Thoughts, and their Emotions. This type of manipulation happens on a continuum. It is a well-defined psychological phenomenon. Personally, I really dislike the phrase “cult mind control” in part because it uses a definition of “cult” that differs from the sociological definition and from the evangelical one. However, I used the term in the context of referring to Hassan’s model to be clear what it is I’m talking about.

The extent to which the military uses “cult mind control” as defined by Hassan should be based on properly evaluating it through the BITE model, not by axiomatically declaring that it doesn’t use cult mind control because it is the military (USA!).

FWIW, Hassan says the following about military on page 115 of Releasing the Bonds:

The military is an example of a highly structured, pyramid-shaped organization. There is a strict hierarchy. Soldiers are assigned numbers, given haircuts and uniforms, instructed in ways of talking, walking, marching and fighting. It is a career where personal choice is much more restricted than in society at large. In boot camp training, particularly in the Marines, the SEALs and other Special Forces, the use of mind control techniques is considered essential to create the identity of an elite soldier.

But unlike a destructive cult, the military is accepted and valued by society. Military leaders answer to other branches of the government in a democracy. The military is also governed by ethical codes and structural checks and balances. People join the military for a specified length of time, and receive pay and benefits. With a few unfortunate exceptions, the military does not use deception in recruitment. When people join the military, they know what will be expected of them. Soldiers are encouraged to maintain contact with their family and friends, and vacation time is given annually.

When people endure rigorous training such as medical school, law school, the military, or seminary, they are making a conscious choice to become a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier, or a priest. This training ehnaces their sense of identity, offers knowledge and skills and affords a variety of benefits. When a person is deceptively recruited into a destructive cult, the leaders immediately begin a process of tearing down, rejecting, and reprogramming the person’s authentic identity. The person loses his free will. He does not receive many personal benefits, and there is no institutional way to exit with honor.

So K-12 = cult

Or is that just private Christian schools?

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For the sake of clarity, in the book you cite, Peterson is responding to the Evangelical anti-cultists of the 70’s and 80’s such as Walter Martin who defined “cult” as a form of religion that deviated “from a presumed standard of Christian orthodoxy.”

And Hassan's definition of "cult" is, by orders of magnitude, broader and vaguer than Martin's.

If Martin was abusing the term by fabricating a narrow (but still pejorative and ad hoc) definition to suit his purposes, then Hassan's "expansive definition of cult" and his "scientifically debated terms like brainwashing" is likely even more problematic.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Further, Peterson acknowledges that sociologists use the word “cult” to describe religions with a certain level of tension with their surrounding societies.

Sure.  "Cult" can have some clinical usage.

But c'mon.  We all know Hassan's usage is far more akin to Martin's, likely even further away from clinical usage than that one.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with what Steven Hassan says in his book about empowering people to think for themselves.

Sure they do.  These are all points of comparison that merit attention.

Hassan's usage is worse than Martin's.  Per Dr. Mann's assessment: "Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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."

Also this: "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?"

Also this: "Hassan presents his idea as absolute truth, ignoring the fact that there is no scientific theory and/or scientific evidence to back it up."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for your responses.  
 

Some final comments: 

* I think your comments on the guidance given to MPs begins with what I believe is a false premise.  Having dealt with scores of MPs, I believe most, if not all, understand the purpose of the guidance is to help MPs “do all they can” to help missionaries make an informed, well-considered and prayerful decision about remaining in the mission, not to have the MP “do all they can” to have the missionary stay in the field.

It's clear from reading that quote that the purpose is for all of the people involved to coordinate on convincing the missionary to stay. What’s interesting about Accidental Terrorist is that it shows how these tactics (and others that were made up ad hoc) were applied in Shunn's mission in the late 1980’s.

17 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

* I’m aware of situations where counselors have provided missionaries contact information for former missionaries who made the decision to leave the mission field early and have agreed to share their experiences with current missionaries. 

That's great to hear. I know more than most how heterogeneous mission presidents are, and I’m glad the church is evolving in positive ways.

17 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

*Your struggle to craft something that you would consider non-manipulative and also practical illustrates that attempts to navigate  situations like these that are inherently unique, difficult and emotional are always a bit ad hoc. Thus the best results are reached when all involved exercise compassion and grace to each other.

The reason I struggled to craft something that was both practical and non-manipulative was because I was trying to create something to juxtapose with what was quoted from the Mission President Handbook, which was how to deal with a situation that was caused by manipulation in the first place. If I were asked to offer suggestions on reforming the whole thing so that there wouldn’t be any validity to the “cult mind control” criticism I’d suggest:

1- Don’t allow anybody (both born in the Church and investigators) to make serious commitments to the Church without knowing the full details of what they’re getting into (e.g. Joseph Smith’s polygamy, garments, tithing, the church’s finances, priesthood restrictions, temple recommend interviews, families separated in temple weddings, Book of Abraham, etc.). Completely immunize them against any valid reason somebody might have for not wanting to be a part of this or having serious doubts about the truth claims.

2- Don’t preach that God wants every young man to serve a mission, and don’t pressure people to go (e.g. don’t tell girls to only date returned missionaries)

3- Don’t oversell how close you’ll feel to God as a missionary, how powerful the priesthood will feel, and how wonderful the whole experience will be.

4- Give prospective missionaries some choice about whether they want to learn a foreign language or not and if so, which ones are they interested in.

5- Give missionaries some time every week to be alone and allow them to read whatever they want and call on the phone whoever they want.

6- Put in the back of The Missionary Guide (or whatever) instructions on how to resign from the mission if it isn’t working out for you.

To the extent the Church is already moving in that direction, that’s great.

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So K-12 = cult

No. According to the BITE model, there is very little cult mind control in schools.