Church Universal and Triumphant In Scholarly Perspective
James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton, Editors
(Syzygy: Journal of Alternative Religion and Culture, 1994. 160 pages)
Response by Joseph P. Szimhart (1995)
Book reviews should be descriptive, concise, and perhaps critical or laudatory depending on the reviewer’s viewpoint and the integrity of the book. When I first reviewed Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective in 1994 I contained my reaction to two and a half pages. After several rewrites after comments on my efforts, the review developed into the longer, critical article below. I have been familiar with CUT teachings since 1975. I began the process of joining the group in late 1978, but I finally left it after much personal struggle by November of 1980. Within a month of my apostasy several CUT members approached me to explain to them why I dropped out of the “teachings.” Three out of the four quit the group immediately after talking with me. My career as an “exit counselor” had begun, a career that I took up professionally in 1986 when I began working with “deprogrammers,” exit counselors, and cult education groups internationally regarding a wide variety of controversial groups. I have since called myself a Cult Information Specialist.
Since 1980 dozens of individuals have left CUT after talking with me. I have appeared on many TV and radio programs and have been consulted dozens of times by reporters about CUT. Needless to say, I have a bias, but I felt that the Lewis and Melton edited study on CUT has a bias in the other direction, to a fault—which is why I took the time to offer my perspective in this article.
A Review of the Book
This study concerning Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) may be the first book to ambitiously analyze this “new religious movement” (NRM). The text consists of an introduction and eight chapters by eleven authors. James R. Lewis sets the tone for the text in his introduction. Lewis explains that this study evolved out of his involvement in the trial of three “religious deprogrammers” who allegedly kidnapped a CUT member in November 1991. Lewis agreed to testify as an “expert” for the prosecution to counter claims of “brainwashing.” One week into the trial, in April of 1993, the judge disallowed any experts for either side. Before the trial in Boise, Idaho, Lewis visited the CUT ranch in Montana ostensibly to familiarize himself with the group for his testimony.
After the judge blocked his testimony, Lewis maintained contact with CUT. “I persuaded the Church that they would benefit by having a whole group of academics study them.” (CUT xi) CUT agreed. An organization that once included Lewis among its members, The Association of World Academics for Religious Education (AWARE) allegedly funded “transportation and any other costs” for the study. CUT “provided room and board” for a group of scholars who visited the Church ranch in the summer of 1993. (p.xi) Lewis states that this book represents a preliminary report. The authors plan a longer volume. He summarizes the chapters, then goes on to report that CUT members were “likable” and “intelligent.” Lewis compares CUT to any religious community or corporation when discussing CUT’s mistakes and “occasional abuses.....If one is looking for a less pleasant side of any such movement, it is always possible to find it ... [CUT] has suffered from what might be called ‘middle management problems.’” (p. xiii) CUT’s “Messenger,” Elizabeth Clare Prophet, also known as Mother, impressed Lewis favorably. He suggests that “middle managers,” not Mother, were responsible for abuses of power in “most instances.”
Heritage and Thoughtworld
In the first chapter, J. Gordon Melton of the Institute for the Study of American Religion sketches CUT’s Heritage and Thoughtworld. He identifies the “I AM” Activity as the religious movement from which CUT derived the basis of its theology and ritual. Melton places the I AM group in the Western metaphysical tradition, especially as it borrows heavily from Theosophy and New Thought. He describes the history of the I AM, formed in the early 1930s by Guy and Edna Ballard. They claimed to be the only Messengers of the Great White Brotherhood of Ascended Masters. In 1934 Guy Ballard published Unveiled Mysteries, a story about his meeting with Saint Germain, an Ascended Master who initiates Godfre Ray King (Ballard’s nom de plume) as his Messenger during a series of magical adventures. The I AM teaches that Saint Germain is the “Hierarch” of this planet for the Age of Aquarius, replacing Jesus who was the Piscean “Hierarch.”
Melton informs us that Ballard taught that the Great White Brotherhood of Masters at a spiritual level collectively guide(s) the destiny of the world. He mentions two practices that dominated the I AM Religious [sic] Activity: the dictation of messages from the Ascended Masters (through Ballard only) and decreeing. He traces the former practice back to Helena P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. The practice today is commonly called channeling. The latter practice, decreeing, he situates in the New Thought tradition that spawned the Unity Church, the Church of Divine Science, and many other groups since the nineteenth century. Melton names Emma Curtis Hopkins as the founder of New Thought and the originator of decreeing in 1890.
Melton defines decreeing as “a form of affirmative prayer in which one seems to demand of the cosmic powers that certain conditions (all for the good) prevail.” (p. 5) Hopkins taught that prefacing affirmations or decrees with “I AM” identifies one with God or the “I AM Presence” (the divine self). Hopkins’ student, Annie Rix Militz, added an emphasis on Ascension as the primary goal for students with reincarnation as a condition that must be surpassed. Melton suggests that Ballard appropriated most of his early teachings from Hopkins, Militz, and several Theosophists.
The central images in I AM iconography are the Mighty I AM Presence (a bright figure circled by a rainbow hovering over a smaller figure in a white robe standing in a violet flame) and esoteric paintings of the Masters Jesus and Saint Germain. Melton neglects to mention that the I AM system is emanationist, meaning that God as the Life of the Universe permeates all things and beings that emanate from a Great Central Sun. [In 1976 I AM members taught me that humans have a Mighty I AM Presence that hovers twelve to fifty feet above them]. The I AM decrees purportedly purify the devotee of all misused divine energy accumulated over many lifetimes. The decrees and Ascended Masters correspond to colored cosmic rays. For example, green for healing and blue for power or protection are among the good colors, whereas red for anger and black for evil or death are bad. Melton’s summary of the complex I AM cosmology and history is admirable but incomplete. (See Bryan, Braden, and Zarestsky & Leone for more on I AM Activity).
Next, Melton talks about the legal problems encountered by the group after Guy Ballard unexpectedly died in a hospital in 1939. Most I AM students believed that Daddy (Guy Ballard) had an “indestructible” body as he claimed in one of his autobiographical adventure books. Melton points to Gerald B. Bryan as a catalyst that inspired I AM dissidents to bring legal action against the leaders in 1940. Bryan had been writing booklets exposing the Ballards and their teachings. These were gathered into a single volume, Psychic Dictatorship in America (1940), after the trial (US v. Ballard in Los Angeles) began in California. The I AM leaders were found guilty of fraud, and they could not use the US postal services again until the mid-fifties. The United States dropped the case after a second overturn of the conviction, and the Court ruled, in a landmark statement in 1946, that no matter how bizarre the “teachings” of any religion or an individual's belief might seem, the belief could not be put on trial. The I AM began to rebuild by the late 40s. Its right to use the US post was restored in 1954. The “return of its tax exempt status occured in 1957.” (p. 13) The I AM has owned significant properties in Chicago, Santa Fe, NM and Mt. Shasta, CA.
The I AM’s next crisis came when new “messengers” appeared among them. (p. 13) Geraldine Innocente began producing messages from Ascended Master El Morya and other Masters in 1944. By the early 1950s she and her following broke away from the I AM to form the Bridge to Freedom group. In the mid-fifties a Bridge member, Frances Ekey, founded the Lighthouse of Freedom group and published messages brought forth by a young member, Mark L. Prophet. In 1958 Prophet broke with the Bridge to form his own group, the Summit Lighthouse in Fairfax, Virginia. His future wife, Elizabeth Clare met him in 1960. After divorcing their respective spouses, Mark Prophet and Elizabeth Clare (Wulf) Ytrberg married in 1961. Mark trained Elizabeth to be a Messenger and by 1966 they had moved the Summit Lighthouse headquarters and most members to Colorado Springs, CO.
Mark died of a stroke in 1973. Elizabeth declared him “ascended” and he is now known to CUT as Ascended Master Lanello. From Colorado the group moved to California where Elizabeth reorganized the Summit as the Church Universal and Triumphant in 1975. Melton goes on to describe CUT’s growth and move to Montana in 1986. He summarizes the essentials of CUT teachings as they grew under Elizabeth’s leadership. He explains that CUT views itself as a distinct activity initiated by Master El Morya to continue the work of his disciples Blavatsky and the Ballards. CUT has expanded the Great White Brotherhood to include more members than had been revealed by the I AM or the Theosophists, but they have nevertheless retained the essential elements of the I AM Activity as the core of their faith. Guy Ballard as the Ascended Master Godfre is prominent among CUT’s pantheon of Masters.
Melton estimates that CUT has 30,000 to 50,000 members of varying commitment worldwide. The deeply devoted probably number less than 5000 in my estimation. These members complement the estimated two thousand chelas who live on or near the CUT Ranch in Montana. Levels of commitment range from Keepers of the Flame to Church Communicants who tithe their incomes and subscribe to all “Tenets” of the Church. Melton omits discussion that since the late 80s, CUT has attracted national criticism for its survivalist activities. The Church built huge underground shelters. Top CUT officials were caught in the illegal purchase of weapons. CUT’s tax exempt status was revoked and in question for several years until the group came to terms with the government and either moved or sold off many of the armaments. Other authors in the text discuss the bomb shelters and weapons. In summary, Melton says: “As of the fall of 1993, it appears that the Church has weathered the storm of controversy....... the Church may, like the ‘I AM’ Religious [sic] Activity, take its place, quietly existing within the pluralistic religious environment of the Western society.” (p. 20)
In any event, I find it difficult to accept Melton’s position about any cult or sect. His position in and out of the courts has been consistently pro-cult and against critics of cult behavior. Melton may not agree that he is a cult apologist but in his address before the American Academy of Religion conference in Washington, D.C., 1993, his position seems clear:
“[J]ust as we would not call upon the Ku Klux Klan to offer expert testimony on African-Americans or the American Nazi Party to speak about the Jews, so we should cease calling upon so-called “cult” experts, who have as their agenda the destruction of non conventional religions, to provide testimony and information about religious groups. “Cults” exist only in the same realm as “niggers” and “kikes,” a realm of non-being. In my world, cults do not exist. Hence, anyone who purports to be a cult expert, is an expert about nothing at all.” (Peter Ross quoting J. G. Melton, June 1995, “Unification News,” p 29).
The ongoing argument over what is a cult and how to define a cult has not been resolved. The Michael Langone (1993) definition states that a cult is “a group or movement......that exhibits great or excessive devotion...to some person, idea, or thing....[It] uses a thought reform program...induces dependency and exploits members...” (Langone, 1993, p. 5) This definition puts a destructive spin on cult “groups” by impeaching cult behavior when it is destructive. In anthropology and sociology cult usually describes ritual behavior toward some deity or supernatural power within a religion, tribe or community. For example, note how Emile Durkheim expressed cult early in this century:
“From this point of view, it is readily seen how that group of regularly repeated acts which form the cult get their importance. In fact, whoever has really practiced a religion knows very well that it is the cult which gives rise to these impressions of joy, of interior peace, of serenity, of enthusiasm which are, for the believer, an experimental proof of his beliefs. The cult is not simply a system of signs by which the faith is outwardly translated; it is a collection of the means by which this is created and recreated periodically.” (Durkheim, p. 464)
Most academics in the American Academy of Religion and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion would favor the Durkheim definition of cult as a system of rituals and signs, not as a description of a controversial new sect or marginal religious movement. To put this into more objective terms, Durkheim would say that Catholics participate in the cult of consecration and communion during a mass or Christian Eucharistic rite. Langone, reflecting the views of the Cult Awareness Network and the American Family Foundation, notes the more neutral, academic use of the word but takes advantage of how the word has “firmly implanted itself in popular discourse.” (Langone, 1993, p. 2) Melton, Lewis and company impugn this notion of cult in popular discourse, however, they do it to a fault.
I may be among Melton’s “so-called cult experts” but it is clear to me that Melton distorts when he equates neo-Nazis with scholars and cult critics who support the views of the Cult Awareness Network and similar organizations. The question is not whether cults exist or that some organizations can properly be defined as destructive cults; the question is what kind of world does J. Gordon Melton live in? In his world of cult apologetics there may be no such thing as destructive groups with psychopaths for leaders. In that world there are only New Religious Movements that sometimes make mistakes, that “disgruntled” ex-members vilify and anti-cult crusaders stereotype. In any case, the I AM Activity is a now shadow of its former size—it once attracted 5000 people in Chicago to a single meeting in 1938. (Bryan, 1940, p.145) Today, the I AM has no charismatic Messenger and I would be surprised if its active membership reaches 1000. Church Universal and Triumphant will most likely suffer a similar fate if no new “messenger” takes Elizabeth Prophet’s place. The cult of continuing dictations from ascended masters keeps such groups dynamic.
Mediation of Ideology and Public Image
In the second chapter, Jocelyn H. DeHaas of the University of New Mexico presents a paper about the Mediation of Ideology and Public Image of “the Church.” DeHaas reiterates some of the roots and history of CUT as described by Melton. She adds that both the “I AM” Activity and the Movement Theosophical borrow heavily from Eastern religions. CUT has added a dose of Catholicism, especially with the inclusion of Marian devotionalism, a form of the rosary, and holy communion..
DeHaas, in keeping with most authors of this text, avoids the CUT or C.U.T. abbreviation in deference to calling it “the Church.” Her perspective is shared by CUT members who feel that the media and critics have created a pejorative association with the initials in the public mind. In describing the Church, DeHaas calls it a “colony” (p. 25) within the local community of Paradise Valley and southwestern Montana. She mentions that Church staff tried to allay fears in the community when they first moved to the area in 1981, claiming that “it is not a cult and does not use mind-control techniques to brainwash its members.”(p. 26) DeHaas informs us that this “task was not made easier by the targeting of the Church by the Cult Awareness Network....which gave public lectures against the Church and started a Montana branch.”(p. 26) She states that the local papers ran articles about CAN’s annual conferences in 1990 “which warned of possible danger from the Church.” The paper also included interviews with “Network specialists describing the alleged evils of the Church.”(p. 26)
Apparently, a religious sect in Oregon headed by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh “unknowingly did much to harm to the early public image of the Church.” (p. 26) Between 1980 and 1985 several thousand Rajneeshies took over and terrorized the small town of Antelope. They established their own police force and took political control over the 50 or so remaining residents. Eventually, United States authorities arrested the Bhagwan and deported him, after which much of his cult disbanded and regrouped elsewhere. DeHaas asserts that the Church (CUT) was compared to Rajneeshpuram by locals in the community fearful of a political takeover. One Church member ran for County Commissioner in 1990 but “decided to step out of the race after fears of another ‘Antelope incident’ intensified.” DeHaas reports that “the Church does not try to have members elected to governmental posts.” (p. 27)
When the Church’s head of security and the Church Vice President were both arrested and convicted for illegal weapons charges in 1989, the local community was outraged. The rumors that the Church was stockpiling weapons resurfaced. Elizabeth Prophet claimed ignorance but former members and internal documents revealed that she must have known. Subsequently, Church efforts to clean up its image and publicly counter the accusation of money laundering to purchase weapons “was well received.” Also in 1989, information leaked to the public that CUT was secretly conducting a huge building operation. As a result of continued threat from “Soviet Communists” the Church engaged in a covert operation to construct underground shelters designed to withstand nuclear attack and hold over one thousand members. A Church representative said that permits for bomb shelters in Montana were not required. DeHaas says that “if these were required, the Church members would have complied.” (pp. 35-37)
At one stage, even before the shelters were finished, Prophet predicted a “dangerous period” (due to astrological configurations surrounding March and April 1990). Prior to this period members from all over the world were moving to Montana to be safe, but they were particularly agitated by reports in the press about “paranoid armed religious fanatics.” Some community members profited handsomely from selling bomb shelter supplies to Church members.
Environmental disputes regarding the Yellowstone ecosystem have erupted between the colony and the community, but DeHaas reports that Church abuses have been highly exaggerated in the press and by the critics. For instance, when the press noted that 20,000 gallons of fuel spilled from bomb shelter tanks, the Church was quick to point out that only 10 gallons reached a creek. In order to improve her public image since 1990, especially in light of the arrest and conviction of her husband, Elizabeth Prophet and CUT members have appeared on television shows including Larry King Live, Donahue, and Nightline.
In conclusion, DeHaas sees the Church’s conflict as the core conflict between any two groups -- “one established and one newcomer.” She terms the “colony” as “Collectivist-Mystical” while the larger community is “Individualist-Rationalist.” She suggests that this dichotomy “causes the tensions which rise” but are complicated by “issues directly and not directly linked to the religious ideology of the group...Much of what they must still deal with is guilt-by-association comparisons with other religious sects, the actions of the individual member being representative of Church policy, and outright misconceptions and myths.” She reports that most people in the community view the “colony” as “strange but harmless.” (p. 33)
Demographic Profile
In the next chapter Constance Jones of Mills College summarizes the results of a demographic profile of 300 Church members. The study stems from a six-page questionnaire administered to several hundred members during the July, 1993 annual gathering of thousands of Church members. Some of the significant findings are as follows: Although there are “clearly” more female members in the Church, the sample consisted of half of each gender. 75% were United States citizens, 10% were European, and 9% were from Canada. 84% reside in the United States. 90% were racially white, 2% were African American. Most members were from 30 to 60 years old. 44% were married. 77% listed themselves as Church “Communicants, Keepers and Pearls Reader.” (This latter category can be interpreted as serious members). As a whole the sample was “well educated” with 27% college graduates. 26% had studied the Humanities with 9% the Sciences.
CUT operates a religious studies school called Summit University where the teachings of the Church are rigorously emphasized. Ministers of the Church complete the school to all three levels. Levels are in quarters or three months. 42% of respondents said they attended Level 1. 16% attended Level 2, and 3% went to Level 3. 38% declined to answer the question.
Employment among respondents ranged from 18% employed by CUT, 21% self-employed, 29% in service or industry, 3% in government, to 1% retired. Around 20% declined to answer. 30% were in professional and 9% in managerial occupations. 22% made less than $5000 and 12% made $50,000 or more. Around 60% answered that they were politically conservative and 3% answered liberal. 34% reported that they were Republican but half declined to answer to party affiliation. 43% were Protestant as children, 35% were Catholic, and 3% were Jewish. Only 1% were in a NRM (new religious movement) as children. 49% were affiliated with one or more non-traditional religious groups after childhood.
In her discussion, Jones states that the Church is consistent with the sociological definition of cult because of the “cult” of Ascended Masters who speak to members only through a “charismatic leader with absolute authority.” She distinguishes this use of cult from the “popular” use of the term. CUT distinguishes itself from “sects” because there is no message to “reform a religious tradition... rather an appeal to an eclectic and novel synthesis of elements from many traditions.” Jones explains that CUT’s “predominant political activism and... conservative stances are decidedly non-cult characteristics.” Jones lists cult characteristics as a group that: 1. is not engaged in social change, 2. is found exclusively in Urban areas; 3. deliberately contrasts itself with dominant religious groups; 4. has members that are disenchanted with and alienated from the larger world, can not demonstrate stable employment and do not value family relationships; 5. is small, informal, and appears to be transitory. According to her, CUT fits the sociological profile of a denomination and has grown past the cult stage.
Personality and Intelligence of Church Members
Bruce A. Sowards, Michael J. Walser, and Rick H. Hoyle of the University of Kentucky, Lexington present the results of a “personality and intelligence measurement” of 355 Church members. They approached their study of CUT to determine if the popular, “mainstream media” image of cults and cult members as being somehow deviant, “psychologically disturbed or maladjusted, unintelligent, and ‘brainwashed’ by powerful leaders,” is accurate. Their “volunteer subjects” came from among the 2,044 adults who attended the 1993 conference in Montana. One quarter of the sample lived on the Church Ranch. The sample consisted of 65% females. They administered the Shipley Institute of Learning Scale to measure general intelligence and the Mental Health Inventory to measure psychological distress and well-being.
Church members in the sample scored on average with the “normed” population in most psychological and well-being areas except in “play” and “aggression” where they scored lower. Female respondents scored lower than average in “social recognition.” The researchers could not determine if this latter quality in the women was due to CUT’s public image as a “cult” or some other factors that may have been ideological. Both genders scored higher on the “Understanding subscale” than the norm. On the general intelligence scales, Church members scored “significantly higher” than the norm (p. 66) The authors suggest that this might be due to the “intellectual” nature of the group that attracts people who are “intellectually inclined.”
Studies of Church Children
The children of the Church were represented in the next two chapters in studies by Gary Shepherd and Lawrence Lilliston of Oakland University. They prefer the NRM designation over “cult” to describe CUT. Their first impression of CUT came through a national television broadcast of a talk show that featured CUT members and critics in May 1993. This was after the Branch Davidian conflagration at Waco. CUT had been mentioned often in the media as potentially the next “Waco.” One of the Church members featured on the program was Laverne Collins/Macchio who was allegedly kidnapped by deprogrammers. The authors state that “Ms. Macchio’s account of her ordeal and religious conviction struck us as both poignant and convincing.” (They denigrate the audience members who “ignoring the welling tears in Ms. Macchio’s eyes, reserved their loudest applause for guest ‘cult experts,’ who characterized people like Ms. Macchio as ‘brainwashed.’ In a little less than two months later, we found ourselves directly interviewing Ms. Macchio, Mr. Steinman [CUT astrologer and media liaison], and scores of other members.” (pp. 67-68)
They noted that, although the children who attended Church schools performed well academically, they lived in a parochial environment which could “dump” them if they did not “measure up.” (p. 74) Children who attended public schools had to deal with some prejudice from the community. They knew that some people regarded them as a “dangerous cult.” In their preliminary impressions of the children the authors asked one member who she admired most. She answered “Catherine the Great... who carried on a tradition and was a strong woman leader.” The authors do not tell us that Elizabeth Prophet claims to have been that same Catherine in a past life. (p. 75)
Church children attend a school which carries around 200 pupils from K to 12 grades. Church prayers, decrees, and songs are part of the curriculum. Children from K to grade 4 learn in a modified form of Montessori training. Maria Montessori is revered by the Church as an “Ascended Master.” The schools are not accredited by the state, but this has more to do with their lack of facilities than the level of education. The children, especially older ones, dress in popular teen styles. Church adults are resigned to the fact that most Church children will drift away from or defect from the “teachings” as they approach adult status. Children might rebel against Church teachings by listening to Rock music or dressing in the “forbidden” colors like black or red. Some felt guilty about these transgressions while others did not.
During the “shelter cycle” [late 80s to 1991] especially 1990, many children were coming to class “deadtired from staying up all night to help move supplies into fallout shelters.” (p. 72) The Church was preparing for a “prophecied” nuclear attack. Some of the younger children seemed especially upset...of having to live underground...for an indeterminate time...and ward off enemies.” (p.72) But that “fear” has since subsided. Shepherd and Lilliston noted that Church parents were, in general, willing “to be flexible about their children’s religious choices. [T]hey seemed resigned to the fact that
their older sons and daughters would, in fact, eventually drop out of the Church.” (p. 94)
Experiential World of the Children
In their next chapter, Shepherd and Lilliston analyze the experiential world of the children. Through extensive observation, interaction, and interviews as well as examination of Church teachings and educational materials, the authors conclude that
the children exhibit an “above-average psychosocial functioning.” (p.118) They do not explain why children with discipline problems or severe handicaps are screened from the group, especially the CUT school. In my experience with CUT, prospective believers soon learn that their mentally and physically handicapped children are karmically flawed according to CUT’s reincarnation doctrine. That is enough to turn most parents against bringing their beloved handicapped children into the cult or raising them in it.
Lilliston and Shepherd report that neither the Church nor Mrs. Prophet “make claims to present a closed, completely internally consistent theological system that explains all things. To be sure, there are specific practices that are narrowly circumscribed (e.g., patriotism or attitiudes towards the practice of sex), but, beyond these relatively few limits, truth may be found in many forms and by many paths.” (p.109) Either the authors and I disagree about the meaning of “closed system” or they do not see that CUT teachings and Mother’s elite position as the only true messenger aim to create a powerful psychological and spiritual closure around the CUT devotee. A closed system does not have to “explain all things.” It merely has to suggest that all explanations will come as long as you remain on the path, whereas spiritual darkness awaits outside the path. That was my experience and that of dozens of ex-CUT members I know.
An example of divine encouragement to remain on the “Path” is in a Pearl of Wisdom, one of hundreds of published dictations by various ascended masters channeled or spoken by Mrs. Prophet, by “Beloved Gautama Buddha” (PoW, Vol.31 No.2, January 10, 1988):
“Keeping on keeping on is a profound statement. It is made by all who have experienced the wonders of that moment when the very next step on the Path has been to reenter eternity whence thou didst descend.” (“Buddha,” p.16)
Later in the same Pearl, Mrs. Prophet dictating “Buddha” states:
“I know who shall stand. It is those among you who fear not our fire but understand the intensity of it through our Mantle and Messenger that must at all times be measured by a co-measurement of the urgency of the hour.” (IBID, p. 20)
Peppered throughout the Pearls and lectures which CUT devotees hear and read over the years are the same suggestions: Stay on the true path and believe our words through the only one who “wears” the “Mantle” as our “Messenger,” Mrs. Prophet. Another example of Prophet’s exclusivity comes from a Pearl of Wisdom from “Sanat Kumara” (PoW, Vol. 31 No. 4, January 24, 1988):
“Without faith in the living Guru, it is impossible to please God.....It is the faith in the living Christ of Jesus and in those who have worn the mantle of Guru throughout the ages that enables you to fulfill that which is pleasing unto the Lord.” (“Sanat Kumara” p. 42)
In this same Pearl by “Sanat Kumara,” Prophet condemns by name several other spiritual leaders with cult followings [bracketed words are my clarifications]:
“And therefore I say, Woe! Woe Woe! Unto this Swami Rama [of the Himalayan Institute in Pennsylvania] and all who are like him and with him, the false hierarchies out of India who have come as fallen angels, taken bodies of that blessed nation and therefore moved against her people..... Let it come to pass, therefore, that they are exposed! they are exposed! they are exposed! As you name them now [in CUT judgment decrees] and demand the cutting free of all true Lightbearers who have been fastened to them by manipulation and, yes, by direct black magic......even that Sun Myung Moon, go down! Woe! Woe! Woe!” (IBID, pp. 43-44)
[Note how CUT belief in black magic can be countered by decree magic]
Religion Under the First Amendment
We can characterize the final two chapters as overtly biased commentary. Michael W. Homer of Salt lake City, Utah informs us about Religion under the First Amendment in respect to CUT. In his selective history of religions-in-court cases, Homer states that “the willingness of courts to examine non-traditional religious practices in light of mainstream traditions often leads to religion-bashing in the judicial forum.” (p.123) He characterizes one court decision, influenced by “brainwashing” theory, as responsible for giving a convicted killer a lighter sentence. “The court believed that because of this brainwashing, LeBaron had lost his capacity to reason and think for himself while committing the crimes, ....” (p.123). Homer asserts that the Branch Davidian sect in Waco were “for the most part, ... peaceful and non-disruptive to society... Rumors of child abuse, brainwashing, and sexual deviancy were widespread in the weeks and months preceding the standoff. These rumors, fueled by anticult organizations, led to tragic results.” (p.123)
Homer then launches into his assessment of litigation between CUT and former member Gregory Mull who won a $1.5 million judgment against CUT and Elizabeth Prophet. The Church lost all appeals after the decision in 1986. Rejecting the court’s final verdict Homer disputes the jury’s judgment. He claims that Mull “resigned from the organization over a dispute involving repayment of notes” amounting to $37,000 over which CUT sued Mull (p.125). In turn, Mull countered for “fraud, duress, undue influence, involuntary servitude, assault” and other torts. Homer claims that the Church’s beliefs and practices were in question during most of the trial and that only “one day” was given to evidence involving the promissory notes. Homer then describes another claim brought by Randall King against CUT that was essentially settled out of court in King’s favor. Homer neglects to mention that King was once married to Prophet and held a high office in the Church during the mid-1970s. [Mull died within months after he won the case against CUT and Mrs. Prophet due to complications from Multiple Sclerosis brought on by stress from the trial. See article by Mull’s attorney, Lawrence Levy, CSJ Vol. 7, No. 1, 1990].
Next he mentions William Purcell, a Church member who filed claims for a return of contributions of over $100,000 elicited from him by Church leaders. “The action was dismissed in 1986 in favor of the Church” (p.126), according to Homer. According to one of Purcell’s attorneys in that case, Herb Rosedale, the Church made a settlement and nobody pays money where there is no basis for a claim. The action was not dismissed in favor of the Church. Purcell talked to me often by phone after he left CUT. According to him, CUT’s staff manipulated nearly $150,000 out of him in less than a year. At the time he was confused and vulnerable, rendered temporarily homeless by Church greed until a social worker assisted him to recover his self-esteem and his estate.
The Macchio deprogamming case finds another interested author in Homer. “Numerous ‘anti-cult’ organizations promote kidnapping and deprogramming of church members who have been ‘deprived of their free will.’ Theodore Patrick and Joseph Szimhart are two prominent deprogrammers. Mr. Szimhart calls himself an exit counselor.” (p.127) Homer asserts that “deprogramming activities invade the civil rights of members and deprive [them] of choice in their affiliations. Deprogramming also exploits family ties and may further the destruction of family relations.” Later, he states that even though family members instigate a deprogramming or kidnapping, the deprogrammers are the “facilitators” and “instigators.” (pp.127-28) “Further, family members often refuse to testify against the perpetrators, making it virtually impossible to convict.” (p.128)
Homer takes issue with the “necessity defense” or “choice of evils” defense allowed by many courts, including the Macchio case (State of Idaho v. Joseph Szimhart, et al.). His contention is that the necessity defense “allows the trier of fact [defense] to review the religious organization’s practices, and the degree to which those practices comport with the trier of fact’s values may affect the outcome of the case.” (p.130) In his review of child custody cases and the Church that have had mixed results, Homer states quite correctly that “results seem contradictory [but] individual facts and circumstances often dictate results. Unfortunately, all the relevant circumstances are not always apparent from court records.” (p.132)
In the remaining sections of his chapter, Homer covers zoning problems, tax issues, and environmental challenges involving the Church. He compares the hostility encountered by CUT with the “Mormons” when the Latter-Day Saints tried to purchase property and build temples in Seattle and Portland. He concludes by stating that our courts have maintained a “precarious balance” when it comes to delving into a nontraditional religious belief or practice in order to protect an individual’s rights, especially a child’s.
Law Enforcement Perspective
Moorman Oliver, Jr from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department offers us his experience with Church Universal and Triumphant from A Law Enforcement Perspective. Oliver characterizes the Church as “[P]rimarily Judeo-Christian, with some Eastern religious beliefs as well,.... that has been labeled a.... doomsday cult.” (p.139)
He investigated the Church headquarters, apparently at the same time as many of the authors of this text, during the 1993 summer conference. In his estimation, after his personal investigation, all of the allegations that the Church illegally stockpiled weapons or had a “tower with gun slits” were malicious rumors. His general conclusion was that the Church members were “uniquely dynamic, friendly, and straightforward” people who were being abused by the media and critics. Oliver claims that he spoke with critics before and after going to CUT headquarters in Montana: “Those [critics or detractors] who would speak with me were surly, cantankerous, and barely civilized.” (p.147)
Oliver also spoke with at least two Church members who had endured deprogramming attempts that failed. One of these members was Ms. Macchio:
“She was dragged screaming from her home by unknown thugs to a waiting van while her four young children watched in horror. She was held for seven days while her children wondered where their mother was or if she was even still alive. She was lucky -- now reunited with her children and in fellowship with Church members. And there have been others. Kidnapped, held as prisoners, assaulted, and subjected to brutal assaults on their religious beliefs ...” Oliver asserts that “most, if not all, of the detractors are either affiliated with or are supporters of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN)....CAN associates have a history of propagating rumors, twisted half-truths, outright lies, and even criminal activity against religions that deviate from mainstream religion.” (p.148)
Commentary by Joseph Szimhart
When I suggested that the Cultic Studies Journal review this book, I hoped that someone else would do it. [As I noted above, I have been a critic of CUT since 1980 and I have a history of helping persons reeavulate their devotion to the Church]. In a weird way I am partially responsible for the Lewis, Melton, et al. study about Church Universal and Triumphant or CUT. When I was arrested in my home in New Mexico in January 1992 for allegedly kidnapping a CUT member (then LaVerne Collins) ten weeks after the incident, it was clear that the prosecution regarded me as the “heavy” who helped organize a kidnapping. The prosecutors and detectives may have relied on cult propaganda about me. As the facts at trial unfolded, it became clear that I was the least involved and had no knowledge of an abduction before I arrived.
Upon arrival, I determined that the family had reached an agreement with LaVerne to talk with ex-members for a few days. LaVerne’s mother told me that she had already talked to police about the incident two days before. She believed that we had official sanction for the intervention. I kept to my agreement, tried my best to communicate with LaVerne and left after three days before any one else present did. According to court testimony by Collins/Macchio’s family and her then husband, she pressed charges after returning to her home with her mother and sister a few days after I left Idaho. The family felt that law enforcement officers in concert with CUT members convinced LaVerne to change her mind after approaching her. Collins/Macchio’s mother was arrested immediately. Her pregnant sister was arrested at an airport within the day. Charges were later dropped against both mother and sister. The security team did not stand trial—they accepted a relatively lenient plea bargain.
Three security men who allegedly carried out the abduction remained at the scene of discussions with Collins/Macchio while I was present. In court a prosecutor asked me what they were doing there if not to hold Collins/Macchio against her will. I answered that was not the only reason for security. The prosecutor did not press me further. Had he asked I would have recounted another intervention that coincidentally involved myself and the two defendants—the only other time all three of us had worked together.
A few years earlier we assisted another CUT impacted family with an intervention in Minnesota. In that case there was no coercion or confinement at any time. The CUT member was always free to come and go and make phone calls. After she called the CUT center nearby during the first day of discussions, seventeen piqued Church members showed up in three vehicles. Half of them entered the home. Apparently they thought we might kidnap their fellow member, or worse in their view, convince her to leave the teachings. It was an unsettling experience for us and the family. Our discussions ended after a few hours of negotiation when three CUT members convinced the deprogrammee to leave with them.
Six or seven jury members who approached me after the decision in Idaho told me they saw no good reason why I had to stand trial, with or without the “necessity” defense. To them the plaintiff appeared to be overacting and the CUT member witnesses were not believed. It certainly appeared that way to us, the defendants, but we were less than objective, to be sure. To me, the CUT witnesses were a good example of “cult mind control” at work. Whether they knew it or not they seemed as if they were hiding something. The jury could have convicted any of the three “religious deprogrammers” (as the press and prosecution characterized us) of either a felony or misdemeanor. Still, only one juror refrained from acquitting one deprogrammer on one count. After all was said and done during three weeks of trial the prosecution garnered one out of a possible thirty-six votes. Kenneth Paolini and I were acquitted on all counts. Charges were later dismissed against Mary Alice Chrnalogar in the interest of justice because the jury voted 11 to 1 in her favor.
One irony of the trial was that all three defendants had been members of CUT. Paolini and his wife had spent a decade of their lives with the Church until the late 1980s and walked away in disgust after they could no longer ignore the psychological abuses and hidden agendas. Paolini was once head of CUT’s security staff. Mary Chrnalogar was deeply involved with CUT teachings for a year. Her family “deprogrammed” her successfully around 1979. During my pursuit of CUT teachings in the late 70s I attended three CUT conferences near Los Angeles. By the end of 1980 I tired of the confusing array of doctrines and the emotional manipulation I felt to adhere to the teachings. I rejected the notion that “Mother” was a messenger of ascended masters after listening to hundreds of hours of her “dictations” on tape, hearing her perform in person and comparing her to other ascended master channelers. I also dismissed the notion of decree magic as viable. [see Washington (1993) and Johnson (1994) for further criticism that supports my position on ascended master groups]. In our trial, Judge Schwartzman rejected outside experts because he did not want either side to “brainwash” [his word] the jury. With our collective knowledge of CUT, we did not need experts.
Some of the authors ( Lewis, DeHaas, Shepherd, Lilliston, Homer, Oliver) seem to ignore or disbelieve the facts of State of Idaho v. Szimhart and testimonies of the defense witnesses. They suggest that a judge and jury are wrong if the decision goes against the interests of a NRM or cult regarding deprogrammers or former members (as in Mull v. Prophet & CUT). They follow the sympathies of James R. Lewis, who admits in his introduction that he was a biased observer of CUT from the outset. He agreed to be an expert witness on CUT’s behalf in an effort to convict several individuals of a crime. Consequently, some of the authors violated two cardinal rules for conducting a sociological study — beware of “going native,” and apply the same standards of inquiry to opposing factions within a society.
Throughout my selective survey of the chapters I point out a few authors who mention “anti-cult organizations” or the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Lewis states:
“‘Anti-cultists’ have generally regarded the many academics who have criticized the ‘cult’ stereotype -- and who, as a consequence, have tended to defend nontraditional religions against unreasonable persecution -- as naive and gullible.” (p. viii)
Lewis claims that just the opposite is true because such sympathetic scholars are worried that they might give a clean bill of health to another People’s Temple or worse. His argument is misleading in two ways. First, Lewis, et al., want the readers to believe that anti-cultists are of a kind — that they think alike in stereotypes. In my nine years of attending “anti-cult” conferences, both religious and secular, I have encountered many conflicting views among average people and scholars alike about definitions of cult, sect, mind control, brainwashing and the like. Whenever I lecture I use the academic definitions of loaded terms like cult while warning my audience against stereotyping any new or old movement. Lewis, et al., are doing the stereotyping here by suggesting that anti-cultists indiscriminately “persecute” new religions.
Furthermore, Lewis wants us to believe that “many” academics who tend to sympathize with nontraditional religions against “unreasonable persecution” are seen by anti-cultists as “gullible.” Among academics who profess to study religions, especially New Religious Movements, few, not many, are regarded as gullible or naive. The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) attracts a wide spectrum of academics, mostly sociologists. A small “frog pond” (Robbins, 1988, p. 203) of religious studies scholars have taken up the “cause” against “anti-cultists.” One might label this the Anti-anticult Movement. Lewis is among this small group. They are distinguished by rhetoric (e.g., Strange Gods by Bromley & Shupe, 1981) which has not changed significantly for 15 years. Some are distinguished by a willingness to defend NRMs and oppose cult critics in court. I spoke with several members of the SSSR at one of their conferences in 1994 and discovered that some, perhaps many, in the Society are critical of the Lewis/Melton approach to CUT. As far as I know, none of the scholars has joined CUT or gone native, but bias for the native is apparent in this case and that should concern the objective scholar.
The study incorporates a serious flaw in methodology. The choice to observe CUT members and use volunteers for study samples at one of CUT’s conferences was, in my view, convenient but unfortunate. The atmosphere at a CUT conference is anything but neutral. I am not aware that the observers took the effects of group influence during a devotional gathering into account. I know from personal experience and interviews with many former members that CUT members at conferences are inclined to protect or exaggerate the positive view of their experience especially to non-members. The obvious presence and potentially sympathetic purpose of the researchers pollutes the observations as well. I am not arguing with the personality and intelligence tests (chapter 4) or the demographic profile (chapter 3) — these are probably reliable and useful despite the volunteer sample. But how would those who did not volunteer test out?
The Lewis et al. methodology blends Participant Observation and Ethnography strategies. These analytic strategies allow for increased knowledge of community processes gained from direct experience. They can help capture the complexity and richness of life circumstances in a community and can give us the perspective of the community member. The weakness of these strategies as opposed to more covert ones are: 1, disturbs behavior of the group under study; 2, creates the problem of selective perception; 3, “going native” or the role of the researcher is restricted or abandoned; 4, findings may lack generality; and 5, reliable interaction between interviewers may be low. (Heller, et al., 1984, p. 92) Also, the relatively brief period of observation may not convey a true perspective, a factor that relates to number 4 in Heller.
In Melton’s chapter on the Heritage and Thoughtworld of CUT, I can sympathize with his constraints in terms of space to cover a complex cult history and esoteric teaching, but he omits a few significant facts. That CUT’s ideology borrows much from the I AM Activity is obvious even though certain practices have changed. For example, the I AM Activity generally excluded Black people for racial karma reasons [I know this from personal interviews with older I AM members] but CUT accepted Blacks openly after the late 1960s. According to the study sample, only 2% of CUT devotees are Black or African American.
CUT continues the I AM practice of decreeing in style (high speed chanting for two or more hours a day) if not in content. Melton says that the Church uses decrees “to invoke light, to expose evil, and to give illumination to God’s people.” (p.18) The decrees are actually a form of ancient mantra magic or attempts to cast spells over people, the future and the environment. (Note my example above regarding Pearls of Wisdom and what to do about false gurus). Melton does not reveal CUT’s appropriation or use of the infamous I AM Smash, Blast, Annihilate, and Consume decrees. Such decrees were designed to target alleged powerful enemies of the Light and group. The enemies were on an actual hit list of names and groups that either criticize or irritate the group. The list was often revised by group management and inserted into the decree books by the devotees on typed sheets when I was observing CUT in the late 70s and early 80s. I have several such lists.
I learned that these “powerful” decrees are meant only to Blast and Annihilate or purge the “evil energy” out of a person or activity, not to harm them physically. The harm would be “self-inflicted” if the corrupt person insisted on holding on to the “evil”—a projection of “karmic law” according to group doctrine. The hit lists have contained names of Church critics, the Council on Foreign Relations, most liberal congressmen, and many Rock ‘n Roll musicians and bands.
The decrees are forms of mantra chanting, or japa (repetition), that reflect certain Asian and shamanic traditions. CUT decrees are repeated either 3, 12, 40, or 144 times as a rule. Mantra traditions believe that all things and thoughts are interconnected by the same energy which can be tapped and manipulated with correct intentions, rituals and words. In the mantra traditions of India each word-form is either the name (nama) of a deity or the equivalent seed-sound (bija).
“Sound and its vibrations (spanda) are able to interrelate and interact with all elements and all levels, stimulating resonance or sympathetic vibrations among them. Moreover, every emanation or manifest form, every distinct type or class of reality or being, is produced by and corresponds to a specific configuration of subtle sound-vibration which in turn corresponds to and is expressible by a specific linguistic and cognitive form. This precise correspondance of being, sound, thought and language is a key assumption underlying this rationale for a mantra’s effectiveness.” (Krim, p. 458)
[The preceeding quote describes CUT decree logic and theory.]
Not so obvious is the influence of the Agni Yoga Society’s literature and art. Lewis and company do not mention the Agni Yoga Society’s influence on CUT. Agni Yoga or the Teaching of Living Ethics was founded in 1920 by Nicholas and Helena Roerich. They were cultured Russian Theosophists who believed in the revelations of Madame Blavatsky. Roerich had many important followers in the United States including real estate developer Louis Horch and Henry Wallace, then the Secretary of Agriculture under Franklin Roosevelt. Wallace, Horch and many other American devotees became disenchanted with Roerich in 1935. They regarded him as a poser or a charlatan thereafter. (Williams, 1980, p.118) Roerich was apparently responsible for suggesting the Great Pyramid symbol for the United States one dollar bill. (Dector, 1989, p.134)
To my knowledge Mark Prophet claimed to have cut his metaphysical teeth on one of the first Agni Yoga books, The Leaves of Morya’s Garden (1924). CUT’s Summit University has used Agni Yoga books in its upper levels, especially New Era Community (1926). CUT books have reproduced paintings by Nicholas Roerich as illustrations. In a CUT book, The Chela and the Path (“El Morya,” p.122), Mark and Elizabeth Prophet claim that Ascended Master El Morya “sponsored” them to “carry on” both the work of the Ballard’s I AM Activity and the work of the Roerichs and the Agni Yoga Society. Elizabeth Prophet has claimed that her daughter Tatiana is the reincarnation of Helena Roerich who died in 1955. The Agni Yoga Society makes no such claim.
The I AM leaders have consistently rejected Elizabeth and Mark Prophet as true “messengers” of the Ascended Masters as have the leaders of the Agni Yoga Society. Sina Fosdick, a disciple of the Roerichs when they lived, served as the Agni Yoga Society’s director until her death in 1983. I met Sina Fosdick in 1976 and visited her whenever I was in New York. We exchanged many letters. I was a student of the Agni Yoga teachings at the time but not a supporting member of the Society.
In 1978 CUT members told me that the Prophets had visited the Agni Yoga Society and asked to “merge” with them or at least be recognized as “Morya’s messengers” by them. Mrs. Fosdick confirmed this story for me. She said she firmly but kindly rejected the notion that the Prophets officially represented the Agni Yoga Teachings. The present director, Daniel Entin, maintained in a taped conversation with me that the Agni Yoga group never gave permission to CUT to reproduce N. Roerich’s paintings (e.g., Prophet, E. C. (1984) The Lost Years of Jesus contains 17 full page reproductions of Roerich paintings) or the Agni Yoga teachings in CUT publications or at Summit University.
This brings me to another significant omission in Melton and others. Theosophical leaders from Madame Helena P. Blavatsky onward have jealously guarded their uniqueness in channeling information from the Masters to the world. The Theosophical Society has splintered many times over this matter since Blavatsky died in1891. A pattern of exclusivity continues with many channelers today. Some channelers have gone so far as to trademark the Master or god that they represent, e.g., J.Z. Knight who exclusively channels Ramtha. This exclusivity distinguishes cults from denominations and cults within denominations. For instance, there are many cults surrounding visionaries of the Virgin Mary within Catholicism today. My use of cult in this context agrees with Constance A. Jones in the Lewis/Melton book: “The Church is consistent with the sociological definition of cult in that its themes tend to be mystical and esoteric, centered primarily around the ascended masters and communication with them through Mrs. Prophet.”(pp.50-51) Church members believe that Elizabeth Prophet is the exclusive Messenger of the Great White Brotherhood alive today. In the words of Lilliston and Shepherd, she is “the link between the material world and the universal eternal world. As such, she is not like the rest of us.” (114)
In chapter 2, DeHaas states that “the Cult Awareness Network has targeted [CUT]”
(p.22). The implication here is that CUT, its leader and staff have done nothing to harm members or warrant attention from a cult awareness group. DeHaas also implies that former members are disgruntled about nothing and that their experience counts for nothing. In fact, she mentions no research that covers this aspect of new religion formation, the experience of apostates. CAN and similar organizations, to my knowledge, do not “target” groups. Cult behaviors attract attention from many social forces depending who is “offended.” CUT has made adjustments in its deportment over the years precisely because of outside pressure, litigation, and complaints from current and former members. Criticism of cults can have and has had positive results for society as a whole even if the group feels persecuted. An effort toward openness with the community around CUT and a lessening of its paranoid, armed-camp ideology are two positive results of government investigation and ex-member testimony.
Michael W. Homer misrepresents several facts in chapter seven. Gregory Mull did not “resign from the [Church] over a dispute involving repayment of notes” (p.125) as Homer states. I befriended Gregory Mull one year after he was dismissed from CUT by Elizabeth Prophet. According to Mull, Prophet ejected him for confronting her with critical information which threw doubt on her authenticity as a Messenger. Only later did the Church sue him for moneys allegedly owed. Mull countered in 1981 and won after a long litigation and a jury trial in 1986. Homer presents the case as if Mull invented his distress at the hands of Prophet. The facts of the case — I have read the transcript — tell a different story. For a clearer synopsis of the Mull vs CUT litigation I refer the reader to Lawrence Levy (1990) Cultic Studies Journal Vol. 7, No. 1. Levy was Mull’s attorney. He later represented my co-defendants in Idaho vs Szimhart et al in 1993.
If there is one topic that I might be expert about, it is deprogramming. Homer’s characterization of deprogramming cases (p.127-130) is inept. Using the desperate act of one family in the Collins/Macchio case as a prototype, he creates a stereotype of family interventions with cult members. His claim that Collins/Macchio “escaped” from deprogrammers does not reflect the evidence as I heard it in court — I was not present at the beginning or end of that intervention. She returned to her home with her mother and sister. Homer’s remark that “numerous ‘anti-cult’ organizations promote kidnapping and deprogramming of church members” (p.127) is second hand information. No anti-cult organization I know of, whether religious or secular, encourages families to kidnap or physically rescue cult members. For both practical and ethical reasons, I no longer assist families who want to initiate an intervention with any kind of confinement. When I sometimes did in past years, most of those interventions were successful. [To me the law has not been strict in matters of coercive deprogramming. As in Idaho vs. Szimhart, juries sometimes receive the instruction to consider the necessity of an otherwise criminal act to prevent a greater harm]. Afterwards, a deprogrammee typically forgave the family and team for any discomfort.
In any case, coercive interventions have dwindled since 1990 to rare or non-existent, to my knowledge. The kidnap/ deprogramming threat is more a hollow symbol for cults or anti-anticult proponents than a huge menace to members of marginal groups. Many cult leaders still manipulate devotees by frightening them with stories that their families might brutally deprogram them if they visit home. Most of my clients during interventions have been surprised that the atmosphere of a deprogramming or exit counseling is most like a classroom with mild debate and nothing like a torture chamber.
Many families I encountered in the past instinctively thought about abduction or confinement without any coaching from cult critics. The thought occured when a loved one surprisingly and irrationally refused to talk with anyone knowledgable about their group. These concerned families believed, that given a chance to hear critical information the person could and would make a more informed choice. I have dissuaded dozens of families from taking a coercive route since I began deprogramming related work in the mid-80s. Still, after considering the options, some families I encountered believed that they had no other choice but to confine or abduct — if doing nothing was a detestable option. In most cases, the former cult members are ever thankful to their families. After any type of successful intervention, the former member feels that his or her civil rights are restored, not taken away by deprogrammers.
Naturally, coercive deprogrammings that fail can be legally risky for those involved. Also, the non-traditional group member will have felt persecuted by any attempt to intervene if the effort fails. In short, Homer biases his opinion by considering a tiny, negative sample of this form of social intervention. He does not consider the deprogramming process as valuable in any form or situation.
Comments on Oliver Chapter
The chapter by Moorman Oliver, Jr. deserves little comment. If we are to believe him CUT management (summer 1993) complies at every turn with the law but may have made a few mistakes in the past. He practically whitewashes all of CUT’s brushes with the IRS and the FBI. Oliver’s poorly researched article (apparently he spent two weeks on CUT property and examined 43 shelters) includes reactionary language against “anti-cult” groups, Church critics and deprogramming. He makes some errors in fact. For example, he states that LaVerne Collins/Macchio’s children “wondered where their mother was or if she was even still alive.” (p.148) LaVerne’s sister personally informed her nephews and their father of the intervention immediately, within the minute, after the unfortunate event began, according to her court testimony. Mr. Oliver condescendingly states that a “would-be anti-C.U.T. authoress was a keynote speaker at the CAN [Cult Awareness Network] conference...in 1992.” (p.148) I was at that conference. Kathy Schmook, the “authoress” he mentions, spoke at a workshop but was not a “keynote” speaker.
Oliver does not indicate if he has ever attended a CAN event but he certainly has formed a strong negative opinion of the organization: “CAN associates have a history of propagating rumors, twisted half-truths, outright lies, and even criminal activity against religions that deviate from mainstream religion.” (p.148) To his credit, I agree that anti-cult activity has not always been ethical or accurate—extremist groups sometimes attract extremist, irrational reactions. Whether anti-cult activity is sometimes necessary is another question, one which Oliver avoids.
In the political arena, many fringe groups harbor paranoid suspicions that a shadow government—an international conspiracy of bankers and military men, or even aliens from outer space—actually rule our government. CUT for its part, has also been spiritually and politically interested in government and a shadow governemnt, despite Constance Jones’ assertion that CUT’s “predominant political activism and near consensus around politically conservative stances are decidedly non-cult characteristics.”(p.51) One example comes from a CUT Pearl of Wisdom (Vol.31 No. 1, January 3, 1988) in which ascended master “Beloved El Morya” announces [through Mrs. Prophet]:
“My Candidacy for President of the United States of America: I Run in the Race in the Hearts of My Chelas.” (El Morya 1) “El Morya” goes on to say: “...as I run for office as president..., one son of Hierarchy, one daughter one day may be myself in form to be elected to that office,...” (IBID, p. 6)
If this is not a “cult characteristic,” I’m not sure I understand Jones’ remark. I take issue with Jones’ assessment of what constitutes a cult and if CUT truly fits her designation as a “denomination.” (p.51) Jones may be reacting to the popular notion of a cult in her 5 points noted above.
CUT, from its I AM Activity forerunner, had inherited a fascist foundation. Guy and Edna Ballard claimed to have been reincarnations of George Washington and Ben Franklin respectively, but in this century in real life they were once members of William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, an overtly fascist, pro-Hitler group. Most of the I AM’s first members in the early 1930s were Silver Shirts. ( Bryan, 1940; Braden, 1949)
It was no secret that the Ballards wanted the Roosevelts out of office in the late 1930s and they believed their son would one day be president. As a young man in the late 1940s Donald Ballard lost interest in the I AM teachings and had no interest in political office. I became sensitive to the doctrines of the I AM Activity in 1975 after I befriended Bertha Ingram, an I AM devotee who joined in 1936 and remained faithful until her death a decade ago. Mrs. Ingram introduced me to I AM board members in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She gave me original I AM literature as she explained the teachings and policies to me over several years. The I AM belief has been that the Ascended Masters will appear in their “visible, tangible bodies” in this generation to “guide” humanity into the New Age. J. Gordon Melton reported the I AM belief that our flag will then become gold, white and blue. I AM members also believe that our blood will turn into an amber liquid.
This is CUT’s political heritage despite changes in their public policies. CUT’s plan for government has smacked of theocracy. The “confidential” Lesson 29 of the Keepers of the Flame Fraternity states:
“...you must make calls [decrees]to the Elohim daily who, working in conjunction with the Fourteen Ascended Masters, are determined to take hold of this government at every level, beginning with the White House, the Supreme Court, the Congress, state governments, local governments. The seven mighty Elohim are just waiting to be invited by you to come in to turn this government upside down, inside out, to shake it up and down, right and left, until when the dust settles, the right hearts, the Christed ones, will be in positions of authority.
I say in the name of Christ, You are the authority for America!” (KoF Lesson 29)
CUT spokespersons claim that this quote is out of context, that the group does not intend to overthrow the government. I tend to agree. CUT does not encourage activism in society, but one CUT minister and a member worked with the Committee for a Free Afghanistan in the 1980s. When CUT minister, E. Gene Vosseler, worked for Daniel Graham’s American’s for the High Frontier, he did not disclose his CUT affiliation in his press releases (see Covert Action Information Bulletin). CUT has maintained far right-wing political sympathies. Notable in their decree inserts have been calls for the downfall of the “Capitalist-Communist Conspiracy.”
The decrees are the key to understanding CUT’s political activity, not their tenuous activism. Like Theosophy and the I AM Activity, CUT relies heavily on the participation with and the invocation of occult beings and manipulation of occult forces through meditation, chanting and prayer for change. These groups emphasize magical power over political or social power. CUT’s involvement with weapons and bomb shelters has been a defensive maneuver, however misguided or bizarre. The decree rituals have, at best, an unprovable effect on social and physical reality, but they do have a powerful, even hypnotic effect on any Church member who practices decreeing. I know this from personal experience and from a host of interviews I have done with former CUT members.
Concluding Evaluation
In summary, the Lewis/Melton, et al. analysis of CUT is sympathetic to a fault. The results of intelligence and personality tests of several hundred CUT members may be the only objective chapters in the text. These studies underscore something that many students of non-traditional New Age groups already know: The typical member of a New Age religious movement is an intelligent, law abiding, idealistic person who wants to pursue the truth. The average CUT devotee is not a “zombie” and never has been but devotion to the teachings of Mother dominates their thinking and conditions their behavior. [Mrs. Prophet recognized that some of her less stable and unenlightened followers “would behave like zombies, like mechanization men...” (Bundesen, 1985)]
Cult mind control, when it exists, is not generally apparent to society at large and it may not readily show in results of standard psychological tests. By way of illustration, you could have a discussion with a serial killer or a saint and see the results of their psychological tests, but you may never recognise their real character if you did not know their history. Spouses, children, and parents are usually the first to notice when someone has seriously deviated from their former personality as a result of cult influence. Overall, the Lewis, Melton, et al. study does not reveal how intelligent, loving people can be deceived and manipulated, but it does offer us a limited, somewhat flawed, analytical perspective of an interesting new religious movement with cult characteristics.
references:
Braden, C.S. (1949) These Also Believe, MacMillan Co.
Bromley, David G. & Shupe, Anson D. Jr. (1981) Strange Gods, Beacon.
Bryan, Gerald (1940) Psychic Dictatorship in America, Truth Research Publications.
Bundesen, L. (Jan. 29, 1985) Her Will Be Done, Los Angeles Herald Examiner.
Dector, Jacqueline (1989) Nicholas Roerich, Park Street.
Durkheim, Emile (1915, 1965) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Free Press.
El Morya [Elizabeth C. Prophet] (1976) The Chela and the Path, Summit University.
Heller, Kenneth et al. (1984) Psychology and Community Change, Brooks/Cole.
Johnson, K. Paul (1994) The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the
Great White Lodge, SUNY.
Krim, Keith - general editor (1989) The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, Harper
& Row.
Kybar, Sayid. (1988) The Afghani Contra Lobby, CovertAction Information Bulletin,
Summer, 1988, Number 30.
Langone, Michael D., editor (1993) Recovery From Cults, Norton.
Levy, Lawrence (1990) Prosecuting an Ex-cult Member’s Undue Influence Suit
The Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1.
Prophet, E. C. (1984) The Lost Years of Jesus, Summit University.
Pearls of Wisdom (January 3, 1988) Vol. 31, No. 1., Summit Lighthouse.
Pearls of Wisdom (January 10, 1988) Vol. 31 No. 2., Summit Lighthouse.
Pearls of Wisdom (January 24, 1988) Vol. 31 No. 4., Summit Lighthouse.
Robbins, Thomas. (1988) Cults, Converts and Charisma, Sage Publications.
Ross, Peter (June 1995) CAN Debases Dialogue on New Religions, Unification News.
State of Idaho v. Joseph Szimhart, et al., Fourth Judicial District Court for Ada County,
State of Idaho, Civil No. 18597
Washington, Peter (1993) Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon: Theosophy and the Emergence
of the Western Guru, Secker & Warburg.
Williams, Robert C. (1980) Russian Art and American Money: 1900-1940, Harvard
University.
Zaretsky, Irving I. & Leone, Mark P. (1978) Religious Movements in Contemporary
America, Princeton University.