Q

Cult formation has been common to the human race since the dawn of history. Some of the devotional and ritualistic systems eventually unite and benefit the cultures where they arise while others cause great destruction

How do you feel we should separate the good cults from the destructive ones?

First you need to define what constitutes a harmful cult. In general, harmful cults tend to be insular or self-sealing and guided by a leader with a pathological form of narcissism or selfish, deceptive agenda as opposed to a real, socially viable movement.

Education in social psychology and teaching people how undue influence works to undermine freedom of choice is a start. Good investigative reports in the media. Encouraging ex-members to speak out and protecting them when they do.

Same as today. Cults reflect the cultures in which they arise. Most cults pretend or strive to be reform movements of established polities or religious movements. For example, the worst problem in America is small Bible-based cults with narcissistic leaders that pretend to have new revelations and the "truth" revealed about the Gospel.

Technology has created newer recruiting and formation devices. Online cults are common today with individuals participating and rarely meeting with the group, yet this affects the way they think and behave 24/7 just as if they lived in a compound or commune.

What do you think about educating people in the 18-25 year old range, since they are the prime targets for recruiters?

College age folks face the problem of adult identity formation and growing out of a naturally occurring narcissism while learning that selflessness is an adult trait. Most harmful cults will tap the narcissism in new recruits by saying things like You need to improve yourself before you can improve the world, and We have a THE way for you to do that. There is some truth in that statement but harmful cults raise the barre of purity so high that no one in the group ever achieves enough self-improvement to "graduate" from the cult.

Basically, harmful cults tend to seal a person off from their past social, intellectual and emotional environments through a psychological reorientation to an identity approved by the cult.

Brainwashing like cult is a troublesome word but properly defined as an extreme form of social influence and deception that undermines true freedom of choice, then, yes, harmful cults do brainwash. Brainwashing includes induction of overvalued and false beliefs. It also relies on creating huge exit costs and phobias that prevent people from deciding to quit or defect.

Recovery from cults is like decontaminating from a harmful influence. It depends on what kind of contamination occurred. If the cult leader used sexual abuse or physical abuse then recovery may include living with PTSD or anxiety attacks for some time. False beliefs from cult influence are best resolved by education. It is like realizing how a magician fools you.

"Prying away" is the wrong approach. Families, unfortunately, usually try arguing and giving critical information. That usually backfires as the cult recruit only feels attacked. In my work as an exit counselor I take up to a day of talking positively with a cult recruit before approaching anything critical. One must establish rapport and trust first.

There are laws already in place to prevent fraud, abuse, and tax evasion. Cults get busted on those accounts if a complaint is filed but there is no law to prevent anyone from joining a crazy group, per se. Crazy people and crazy groups can exist as long as they do not "harm" or break the law.

Do you think we can do anything else legally to prevent crimes throughout cults?

Do you think the penalties for convicted cult offenders should be more strict?

Maybe less strict due to mitigating circumstances for cult recruits. For cult leaders, that is another matter and the law should apply to the fullest.

Yes, I was involved with a large New Age cult called Summit Lighthouse or Church Universal and Triumphant around 1979-1980. I broke away myself after much struggle. In educating myself extensively about what happened to me, I became a cult specialist.

I cannot predict it but my guess is more of the same with new cults forming globally while some older ones fade away after the leaders die.

My name is Michael, I am a senior at [ ] High School in CT. For a sociology project I have been assigned to research cults and religions. I have a few questions which I have written up in hopes that you may be able to shed some light on the topic.

If you define "cult" as an elitist group that restricts thought, emotion, and behavior through deception and high demand policies, then the average established religion within a free society does not qualify as a "cult."

Many mainstream religions, such as Christianity, started off as cults, what would you say to the idea that there is no difference between a religion and a cult, just the size of the following?

Again, you must define the words and then proceed. Some controversial groups grow into accepted religions, but most religious and social experiments die off within a generation. For example, many Gnostic cults competed with St. Peter and St. Paul's Christian movement during the first few centuries CE or AD. All but a few Gnostic groups died out due to their radical devaluation of everything in the created world including procreation of children. To the Gnostic, the creation of the physical universe was a mistake and bad. The average Christian saw the created world as "good" based on Jewish, old testament teaching. Gnostic cult members were very elitist and spent a lot of time doing self-purification rituals, lived separate from mainstream society. In the early days, mainline Christians tended to be good neighbors with non-Christian people and dressed no differently.

One thing that most people tend to think of when they hear the word "cult" is brainwashing and mass suicide. Is this common in most cults, or is it the result of several rare cases that made big news?

Unless you study the cult phenomenon, it is easy to stereotype the word based on sensational news. Most cult members live seamlessly in society. They are not noticed unless they break the law or make a lot of hate noise like Scientology does about psychiatry or like anti-Semitic militia groups do about government and Jews, for example.

Many of the cults which involve suicide and brainwashing are said to have a "charismatic" leader, are there any more specific traits to the leader that account for their ability to control their followers?

Charisma depends on relationship need and how a leader sells himself. It is not a characteristic. For example, I have no attraction for the singers Madonna or Justin Timberlake? (they bore me) but others may scream or even faint in their presence. Jim Jones of the People's Temple established his charisma by selling himself as an advocate for the poor and for racial unity. He was a smooth preacher and a slick liar. Once that "hook" was in, the member could justify all of Jones's bizarre behaviors even to the end in ritual suicide.

In certain cults, it is required that members isolate themselves from society and contact with the outside world. If someone in one of these cults wanted to leave the following, how would you recommend they go about doing so? What are the dangers of these sorts of situations? Is there really no way out in most of these cases?

Unless someone is in a physical prison that operates like a cult, that person can "walk away." The trap becomes what is called "mind control" wherein one polices his or her own thought according to a doctrine. Being in a harmful cult is more like a mind trap than a physical one. An example is in politics: Try to get a staunch left wing, agnostic Democrat to vote for a religious Republican!

If you can change someone's mind with good, provable information, they will leave a cult. That has been my job as a deprogrammer or exit counselor for the past 25 years.

In recent years, stories have been uncovered which revealed many corrupt leaders of mainstream religions which ended up in harm to followers. Could it be argued that while there are more people in an organized religion, the amount of danger involved in joining is no different than that involved in joining a cult?

Cult behavior as defined by Arthur Deikman (Them and Us, 2003) has 4 components: 1. Compliance with a group 2. Dependence on a leader 3. devalue outsiders 4. Avoid dissent

To the extent that these characteristics thrive in an irrational sense, the more harmful a group, gang, political org, or or "cult" becomes.

I'm sure that there are many safe and friendly cults out in the world right now, can you think of any and possibly describe their practices?