Allison Mack/NXIVM/DOS


Recommended Posts

To @Vort and @unixknight,

I think you're both onto something, but...here's the thing... It's not really about defining the difference between what is and isn't a cult. It's about knowing when an organization is one and when it isn't.

After the fact it's very easy to look back at NXIVM and say -- yep...cult. But when people were being introduced to it before the scandal broke, how would they know? Yes...red flags pop up...but the people didn't see them as red flags. Why? Because they were indoctrinated already. In the same way as if my bishop asked me to take a difficult calling I would do so and wouldn't take it as abusive -- because I am indoctrinated. I believe in the value of sacrifice, commitment, hard-work, never turning down a calling, etc.

But people who have left the church see such things as abusive. They see the church as taking advantage of it's members (fleecing) for the church's gain rather than the people's.

How do we tell the difference?

I know I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. But partly I'm legitimately asking. I have my own ideas and answers, but am exploring the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To @Vort and @unixknight,

I think you're both onto something, but...here's the thing... It's not really about defining the difference between what is and isn't a cult. It's about knowing when an organization is one and when it isn't.

After the fact it's very easy to look back at NXIVM and say -- yep...cult. But when people were being introduced to it before the scandal broke, how would they know? Yes...red flags pop up...but the people didn't see them as red flags. Why? Because they were indoctrinated already. In the same way as if my bishop asked me to take a difficult calling I would do so and wouldn't take it as abusive -- because I am indoctrinated. I believe in the value of sacrifice, commitment, hard-work, never turning down a calling, etc.

But people who have left the church see such things as abusive. They see the church as taking advantage of it's members (fleecing) for the church's gain rather than the people's.

How do we tell the difference?

I know I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. But partly I'm legitimately asking. I have my own ideas and answers, but am exploring the concept.

I believe the difference is... one encourages you to "study for yourself if what we say is true"... and the other one discourages it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

I believe the difference is... one encourages you to "study for yourself if what we say is true"... and the other one discourages it.

Hmm. I'm not so sure. How does one study for oneself if what a self-help group says is true? They experience whether their self was improved or not. If they, subjectively, consider themselves improved, and others seem to agree, then they must conclude that what the organization offers is true, right?

This is exactly what those in NXIVM reported. The program -- as a self improvement concept -- worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I'm not so sure. How does one study for oneself if what a self-help group says is true? They experience whether their self was improved or not. If they, subjectively, consider themselves improved, and others seem to agree, then they must conclude that what the organization offers is true, right?

This is exactly what those in NXIVM reported. The program -- as a self improvement concept -- worked.

NXIVM is a cult because... they program you into it.  You are discouraged from talking to other people by creating monsters.  That's how Gillibrand's step-mother - an accomplished lawyer - got roped in.  Gillibrand's father tried to get her out for a long time but she wouldn't get out because NXIVM programmed her to think Men are Evil... except for Raniere who is the "vanguard saving women from evil men".  

Contrast that to the LDS Church.  The LDS Church doesn't make demons out of the "outside".  They do the opposite - they claim there is good everywhere.  So it is not a cult.

One might say the Roman Catholic Church is a cult because they used to discourage self study of scripture.  They don't do that anymore.  They encourage people to study for themselves as they teach off the Magisterium.

So, in a way - cults close themselves off from the outside to maintain their truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To @Vort and @unixknight,

I think you're both onto something, but...here's the thing... It's not really about defining the difference between what is and isn't a cult. It's about knowing when an organization is one and when it isn't.

After the fact it's very easy to look back at NXIVM and say -- yep...cult. But when people were being introduced to it before the scandal broke, how would they know? Yes...red flags pop up...but the people didn't see them as red flags. Why? Because they were indoctrinated already. In the same way as if my bishop asked me to take a difficult calling I would do so and wouldn't take it as abusive -- because I am indoctrinated. I believe in the value of sacrifice, commitment, hard-work, never turning down a calling, etc.

But people who have left the church see such things as abusive. They see the church as taking advantage of it's members (fleecing) for the church's gain rather than the people's.

How do we tell the difference?

Well, that IS the difference.  How do we tell?  It's pretty obvious most of the time.

Characterization of the leader's intent.  If they are in it for themselves and are manipulating you for their own gain, it is a cult.  If they are doing it from unselfish motives, chances are it is a self-help group (which most religions are).  Motivation and characterization becomes a big debate point in determining whether the organization is a cult or not. 

What is the motive behind the apostles of our church?  What are they getting out of it?  They were paid a LOT more in their day job outside the Church than their stipend they get as a general authority.  So, what is it they are gaining?

Pres. Nelson was a successful heart surgeon.  You think he wouldn't have made a BUNCH more money in the private sector?  What's he getting out of it?  I don't see women lining up to get into bed with him.  If he were looking for it, you don't think he'd have a much easier time of it from the staffs of nurses he would have worked with for many hours a day?  So, what's he getting out of it?  Adoring fans?  Hmmm... a point, but a weak point.  I see infinitely more adoration from rock star groupies.  And the apostles work a WHOLE lot more than others found to be heads of cults.  Why would they work so hard and get nothing out of it for themselves?

When you look at NXIVM, you know what he was getting out of it.  Money and coital satisfaction for not a lot of work.  But any of the apostles?  I just don't see what they get out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

NXIVM is a cult because... they program you into it.

The same could be argued of most religions.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The LDS Church doesn't make demons out of the "outside".

Of course this is only one example of how one might be "programmed". But historically that has not always been true. Nor, I would argue, is it entirely true even now.

After all, truth is truth. And there ARE demons outside. And we must, indeed, be wary of them.

Of course I understand the difference. I haven't actually read up on the nature of this aspect of NXIVM, but I have read a fair amount on the same idea in Scientology. Speaking of cults. ;)

However, claiming that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no level of demonizing "the world" does not strike me as valid narrative.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

they claim there is good everywhere.  So it is not a cult.

I don't think claiming there is good everywhere is the distinguishing factor of what is and is not a cult. I could easily see a cult having this position with the caveat, "But the MOST truth is here". That would, indeed, be a very effective position to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

It's pretty obvious most of the time.

I'm not so sure.

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

Characterization of the leader's intent.  If they are in it for themselves and are manipulating you for their own gain, it is a cultIf they are doing it from unselfish motives, chances are it is a self-help group (which most religions are).  Motivation and characterization becomes a big debate point in determining whether the organization is a cult or not. 

This only works, however, if the leader's motivation is obvious. In the case of NXIVM I think it was not for most everyone. His program worked. It helped people. And his rhetoric was probably generally "selfless". Heck, they even had the Dalai Lama visit them and lend authority.

th?id=OIP.G6-uM-dVsHRZgcL-1Pq2qgHaFL&pid

I'm just not sure how most people, prior to the exposé of the "branding" and what-have-you would have any way of reasonably seeing the organization as a cult.

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

Pres. Nelson was a successful heart surgeon.  You think he wouldn't have made a BUNCH more money in the private sector?  What's he getting out of it?

Power. Authority. Respect. Honor.

I don't think blowing that off because Mick Jagger has more screaming fans is legitimate.

I, of course, believe, as you do, that they do not do it for these reasons. But I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that such things are impossible as a reason.

Outside the church looking in, with no idea about revelation, I cannot see any good reason why someone would not conclude that leaders of a church with millions of members don't have very strong motivations to be in those positions.

17 minutes ago, Mores said:

When you look at NXIVM, you know what he was getting out of it.  Money and coital satisfaction for not a lot of work.  But any of the apostles?  I just don't see what they get out of it.

Hmm. Honestly I believe that Keith Raniere wasn't fully evil. I tend to believe he actually meant a lot of the good said and did. I doubt it was all a big con and nothing more just to have sex. His programs and thinking don't seem to have been only to exploit. I don't know for sure...but that's my sense. Being a man of the world and corrupt, however, I think he had evil mixed in with the good. (Which goes to your point about there being good everywhere, etc...).

Hard to say for sure. But I doubt most villains are actually comic book villains.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To @Vort and @unixknight,

I think you're both onto something, but...here's the thing... It's not really about defining the difference between what is and isn't a cult. It's about knowing when an organization is one and when it isn't.

After the fact it's very easy to look back at NXIVM and say -- yep...cult. But when people were being introduced to it before the scandal broke, how would they know? Yes...red flags pop up...but the people didn't see them as red flags. Why? Because they were indoctrinated already. In the same way as if my bishop asked me to take a difficult calling I would do so and wouldn't take it as abusive -- because I am indoctrinated. I believe in the value of sacrifice, commitment, hard-work, never turning down a calling, etc.

But people who have left the church see such things as abusive. They see the church as taking advantage of it's members (fleecing) for the church's gain rather than the people's.

How do we tell the difference?

I know I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. But partly I'm legitimately asking. I have my own ideas and answers, but am exploring the concept.

I really think that's the most insidious part... On the surface it may not be visible at all...  So I suppose the best we could do, if we were faced with that situation, is to do research as much as possible.  Maybe asking questions like:

  • How long has the organization been around?
  • What's the buy-in?
  • Are there any former members?  What do they say?  Why did they leave?
  • What are the organization's claims, and can that be shown to be true?
  • What do they consider themselves to be?  A religion?  A corporation?  
  • What do they promise you?  

If we can dig a little deeper, maybe we can find out more, like... does the organization isolate its members from their friends and family?  Does it have secrets at higher levels?  How much power do the leaders have over the individual lives of members?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The same could be argued of most religions.

Of course this is only one example of how one might be "programmed". But historically that has not always been true. Nor, I would argue, is it entirely true even now.

After all, truth is truth. And there ARE demons outside. And we must, indeed, be wary of them.

Of course I understand the difference. I haven't actually read up on the nature of this aspect of NXIVM, but I have read a fair amount on the same idea in Scientology. Speaking of cults. ;)

However, claiming that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no level of demonizing "the world" does not strike me as valid narrative.

I don't think claiming there is good everywhere is the distinguishing factor of what is and is not a cult. I could easily see a cult having this position with the caveat, "But the MOST truth is here". That would, indeed, be a very effective position to take.

Free will is the key.

The Church tells you what is good and what is bad.  It doesn't bind your free will to force good (or force bad) or attempt to.  A lot of non-Mormons say things like, "they force you to pay tithing by creating the 'Temple-worthy class' of members that non-tithe payers can't be a member of".  But, the church doesn't tell you, you can't be with us anymore because you don't pay tithing.

NXIVM holds people in by compromising them.  First is hypnosis to get you in, then it's blackmail to keep you in.

Scientology, as far as I know, doesn't do that.  I don't consider Scientology a cult in the same manner that I don't consider Roman Catholics a cult. 

Warren Jeffs did that - blackmail you in by depriving you of communal support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I don't consider Scientology a cult

Well cult's just a word that, as has been pointed out, has mostly lost all meaning.

There are organizations -- good ones and bad ones. Scientology is a bad one. Of that, I am quite confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You said you can always fly to China.  So, replace China with Abraham Lincoln.

Gotcha that makes sense. At the end of the day most history, especially pre photography, has to be taken with at least a degree of faith. Generally we just have writings, many of which are biased, and archelogical remnants. While we can hold some of these things in our hand, I've touched the doors of the ancient Roman Senate for example, did Julius Caesar actually have as great an impact on history as the writings claim? Many things, even in the sciences or liberal arts, are taken on faith. But the fact that there are actual artifacts to study does tend to differentiate it from the evidence generally used for religious purposes (for example I can't go look at the Gold Plates. I believe the witnesses who saw it and Joseph Smith's testimony about them, but I can't go to a museum and pick them up, wheras I can visit Abraham Lincoln's house in Springfield). That's the chief difference between the two in my mind, or at least why it's easier for many people to accept that Lincoln was an actual president than that Jesus Christ is their actual Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Well cult's just a word that, as has been pointed out, has mostly lost all meaning.

There are organizations -- good ones and bad ones. Scientology is a bad one. Of that, I am quite confident.

It has indeed, though when I'm using the term carefully (as I try to always do, because we all know what it's like to have it hurled at us.) I have no qualms about applying it to Scientology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well cult's just a word that, as has been pointed out, has mostly lost all meaning.

There are organizations -- good ones and bad ones. Scientology is a bad one. Of that, I am quite confident.

I get what you mean by the usage of cult.

Why do you consider Scientology a bad one?  I mean, when I think of bad ones, I think of Warren Jeffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I get what you mean by the usage of cult.

Why do you consider Scientology a bad one?  I mean, when I think of bad ones, I think of Warren Jeffs.

Hmm.

Methinks you need to read up on/study Scientology a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

That's the chief difference between the two in my mind, or at least why it's easier for many people to accept that Lincoln was an actual president than that Jesus Christ is their actual Savior.

You can go to Bethlehem and tour the stables that Jesus was born in.  You can go to Old Jerusalem and tour the site of the temple.  None of this, and neither does Abraham Lincoln's house can prove to you that Jesus Christ is the Savior or that Abraham Lincoln was President.  All that is dependent on historical writings and whether you put faith on the history.  So, why is it easier for people to believe the historical writings that Abraham Lincoln was President than the historical writings that Jesus died to save us from sin?

I say, because people chose to believe it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm.

Methinks you need to read up on/study Scientology a bit more.

I read up on Dianetics and the Scientology belief system.  I don't put much weight on the "Scientology killed John Travolta's kid" or whatever celebrity headlines there are about the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can go to Bethlehem and tour the stables that Jesus was born in.  You can go to Old Jerusalem and tour the site of the temple.  None of this, and neither does Abraham Lincoln's house can prove to you that Jesus Christ is the Savior or that Abraham Lincoln was President.  All that is dependent on historical writings and whether you put faith on the history.  So, why is it easier for people to believe the historical writings that Abraham Lincoln was President than the historical writings that Jesus died to save us from sin?

I say, because people chose to believe it.

 

I don't think we are that far off. My only contention is that the historical (in this case) feels more tangible. I'm not saying it's more authortative than religious evidence, just that it feels that way to many so in that sense I agree with you. But if there was no perceived difference between the two, we'd have a lot more actively religious people in the world than we actually do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I don't think we are that far off. My only contention is that the historical (in this case) feels more tangible. I'm not saying it's more authortative than religious evidence, just that it feels that way to many so in that sense I agree with you. But if there was no perceived difference between the two, we'd have a lot more actively religious people in the world than we actually do. 

Satan's not actively working to convince people that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I read up on Dianetics and the Scientology belief system.  I don't put much weight on the "Scientology killed John Travolta's kid" or whatever celebrity headlines there are about the church.

I'm sure there's some stuff that deserves no weight. There is plenty of stuff lending credence to the underhanded, controlling, cult-like narratives though. Enough to be very wary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm sure there's some stuff that deserves no weight. There is plenty of stuff lending credence to the underhanded, controlling, cult-like narratives though. Enough to be very wary. 

I highly recommend checking out Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath for details on a lot of the abuses.  Also check out statements by David Miscavige's father, who got out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I believe to be a most interesting thread.  The word cult is short for culture.  Culture having a very good connotation and cult having a very bad connotation.  Psychologist tell us there are 3 human needs: #1. Is food and water.  #2 Is clothing and shelter (house) to protect us from the elements of nature.  #3. Is a place (or social structure) where we think we belong and fit in.  It is the #3 that interests me the most because of what it does to different individuals.

Religion: is a culture.  By definition it is a social structure that includes morals, principles and relationships.  But religion is not the only institution that creates a place for individuals to feel and believe their existence is important.  Another strong culture structure is politics.  No one has yet suggested in this thread that politics is much better at creating a cult atmosphere than religion but it is.  I believe there is a similar trend with science and pseudo science.

If we look at human history we see evidence of turning the good of cultures into the bad of cults for the purpose of war - which is one of the greatest (but not the only great) of human evils.  I served in the army during the Vietnam war - no one ever explained to me why or what the reason was for the war in Vietnam.  I doubt but that a few can actually produce a reason that is worth the deaths that took place.  My father once told me that there are two things mostly good people will look their best friends directly in the eye and lie about.  They were -  #1. how well they treat their spouse (especially when the spouse is treating them badly) and #2. How smart they are with money (not always in that order).  Hugh Nibley often spoke of those that will stand in the bright sunlight of noon day and declare it night.

It is difficult to do original research into just about anything.   Often what we call research is just finding out what the so-called experts believe - which is not much more than opinion.  But if we are looking into things why should we reinvent the wheel when so many have figured it out already?

I am amazed and surprised about things we will or will not figure out for ourselves.  As an engineer and scientist - Not only do I have to research and figure out things for myself for my work - but I must put my thoughts into practice and convince my customers that I made money for them in doing so.  Often (usually and always in the beginning) I have to go against the popular notions to prove my value and worth.  Why should someone pay me to come to their company and tell (convince) everybody what they already know?  The reality is that everybody must fail before they are willing to explore the possibility that there is something better that what they think they already know about it.   In religion (especially for the "faithful) that is not likely to happen until after they are dead.

One of the great principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to which I believe is the principle of agency and that despite what everybody else is doing - in the end I am responsible for what I believe and do.  It does not matter what any person or scripture says - I (and you) are responsible for what we believe and do.  Often in discussions I will challenge someone why they believe a certain thing to be so.  They will quote scripture or someone of authority - but that does not mean much to me.  What is important is what they have learned by doing.  An example is tithing.  What have they learned by paying or not paying tithing?  And if it is different from what I have learned by experience - I want to know why.  But if they get upset and refuse to answer but rather accuse - I am of the mind that they are more involved in a cult than they are willing agents of culture.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share