I've seen this everywhere on the internet over the years. And I recently ran across it again and thought I would post it on the site. It's very good information and something everyone needs to see. Unfortunetly, cults can be everywhere. Just not out in the real world, but even online. I've seen cult mentality from some groups and it's quite scary.

Introduction
Events in the last several decades have clearly indicated just how dangerous some religious and secular groups (usually called "cults" by those opposed to them) can be to their own members as well as to anyone else whom they can influence. "Brainwashing," beatings, child abuse, rapes, murders, mass suicides, military drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil governments, international terrorism, and other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of many groups, and in far too many cases those accusations have been correct. None of this has been very surprising to historians of religion or to other scholars of what are usually labled "new" religions (no matter how old they may be in their cultures of origin). Minority groups, especially religious ones, are often accused of crimes by members of the current majority. In many ways, for example, the "Mormons" were the "Moonies" of the 19th century — at least in terms of being an unusual minority belief system that many found "shocking" at the time — and the members of the Unification Church could be just as "respectable" a hundred years from now as the Latter Day Saints are today.

Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical warnings that could be issued, ordinary people faced with friends or loved ones joining an "unusual" group, or perhaps contemplating joining one themselves, need a relatively simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group is liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or judging it solely on theological or ideological grounds (the usual method used by anti-cult groups).

In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call the "Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" or the "ABCDEF" (because evaluating these groups should be elementary). A copy was included in that year's revised edition of my book, Real Magic. I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be effectively used to separate harmless groups from the merely unusual-to-the-observer ones. Feedback from those attempting to use the system has always been appreciated. Indirect feedback, in terms of the number of places on and off the Net this ABCDEF has shown up, has been mostly favorable. For example, it was chosen by and is now displayed on the website of the Institute for Social Inventions, who paraphrased it for their "Best Ideas — A compendium of social innovations" listing.

The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence. It cannot speak to the "spiritual dangers," if any, that might be involved, for the simple reason that one person's path to enlightenment or "salvation" is often viewed by another as a path to ignorance or "damnation."

As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given group (the further to the right of the scale), the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using it, at least of the "is this group more dangerous than that one?" sort. This is if all numerical assignments are based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior by the groups and their top levels of leadership (as distinct from official pronouncements). This means that you need to pay attention to what the secondary and tertiary leaders are saying and doing, as much (or more so) than the central leadership — after all, "plausible deniability" is not a recent historical invention.

This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement agents, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observers use the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes. People who cannot, on the other hand, view competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to anyone, will find the ABCDEF annoyingly useless for promoting their theological agendas. Worse, these members of the Religious Reich and their fellow theocrats will find that their own organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far more "cult-like" than many of the minority belief systems they so bitterly oppose.

It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF is founded upon both modern psychological theories about mental health and personal growth, and my many years of participant observation and historical research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, could (I suppose) count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, both historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclinations to do so.

..>   
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.6)
..>
..>    Factors:      1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10
   
   Low                      High
   
 
1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 1    _________________________
   
 
2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members' external political and social behavior. 2    _________________________
   
 
3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. 3    _________________________
   
 
4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 4    _________________________
   
 
5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or "fundamentalism;" hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 5    _________________________
   
 
6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 6    _________________________
   
 
7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 7    _________________________
   
 
8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members' donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 8    _________________________
   
 
9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 9    _________________________
   
 
10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 10    _________________________
   
 
11 Censorship: Amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 11    _________________________
   
 
12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.  12    _________________________
   
 
13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 13    _________________________
   
 
14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 14    _________________________
   
 
15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 15    _________________________
   
 
16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 16    _________________________
   
 
17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 17    _________________________
   
 
18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group's declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. 18    _________________________
   
 
..>

Rating: 1 (Low) to 10 (High)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Copyright © 1979, 2001 c.e., Isaac Bonewits. This text file may be freely distributed on the Net, provided that no editing is done, the version number is retained, and everything in this notice box is included.

http://www.neopagan.net/

Hey I just read this on your blog!
Anyway I still thinks it's ridiculous how anyone in their right mind can make a conscious decision to let someone else make the rules and regulations for their life. I can't understand how anyone would let the leaders of these cults get away with so much violence, sex and bribery.

After reading this I had a flash back to my childhood. I was brought up Pentecostal which is just as bad as being in a cult!! YUCK! And since then I have never belonged to any church or religious group. Not for me anyway.

 

I agree with that. Here in Florida, we have the Church of Scientology (spelled right?)
For those of you that are not familiar with it, lots of your big movie stars are into it.
Most people here consider it to be a cult instead of a religion.

AHHHHH yes, two hours of life that we'll never get back.

More information provided below about "Cults" This is taken from a Christian site, HOWEVER, the information provided is definitely valid.

How to Identify a Cult

Are you a member of a cult? This article helps to identify the traits of a cult.

In November of 1978, 900 people in Guyana, South America drank a deadly grape drink at the behest of cult figure Jim Jones. Our nation was mortified. In 1993, David Koresh led 76 souls to their deaths in the Waco, Texas compound of the Branch Davidians. Again, a cultist mentality was evident.

Our own brotherhood of the churches of Christ has observed the rise of the so-called “International Church of Christ” (formerly known as the Boston Movement), led by mind-control artist, Kip McKean. Members of this movement are slavishly dominated by the powers-that-be—ultimately by McKean himself.

Though the Bible does not use the word “cult,” the idea is there—at least in seed form. It is represented by the Greek term hairesis, rendered “sect,” which derives from a root meaning “to choose.” W.E. Vine suggests that it hints of a self-willed opinion that rejects the authority of truth, leads to division, and the formation of a “sect” (Expository Dictionary, 389).

Much study has been done in recent years with reference to the development of “cults.” How do these bizarre movements get started? How do cult leaders gain such strong control over their devotees?

Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, has done considerable research in the matter of “mind-manipulating” movements. While one would not agree with all of Landone’s conclusions, he has, nonetheless, identified some key traits by which cultish movements reveal themselves.

Similarly, Steve Hassan, a former cult member and one of the nation’s leading experts on cult control, has produced a valuable work titled, Releasing the Bonds. Both of these men have helped in identifying the tell-tale signs of cult mentality.

Consider the following:

(1) Cult members are “focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.” The leader is a strong-willed, domineering character who rules the group with tight control. He lets it be known in subtle ways that he is “in charge” of the movement. He makes the plans, he orchestrates the movements of the group or groups (sometimes he exercises his sway over several groups). He dispatches the workers, assigns their chores, etc.

Frequently, they even begin to imitate his mannerisms in terms of voice inflection, language patterns, aggressive attitudes, etc. They become “clones” of their esteemed leader. It is not uncommon that the leader knows of weaknesses or past problems of people with his group. Thus, through subtle intimidation and fear he keeps them under his control.

(2) “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,” and there can be pressure or social punishment when there is disagreement with the “boss.” Those who disagree are made to feel as though they are stupid or inept. They are brainwashed with the notion that they do not have the knowledge or experience to question the leader.

Younger people are particularly vulnerable to the leader’s “gift of gab,” and his feigned expertise. No matter how radical the leader becomes in his decisions or actions, the cult members will not criticize him. Even if there should be mild disagreement, no specific expressions are voiced. The members reason that though he may be mistaken in some of his judgments, yet the overall good he accomplishes outweighs any minor flaws.

Members are taught to “rationalize” the conduct of the leader in matters they have always “considered unethical before,” under the guise that the “end justifies the means.”

(3) The leader “is preoccupied with [raising] money.” There is always a need for increasing finances. New projects are ever in the planning. Members are strongly encouraged to greatly sacrifice for the leader’s current “pet” enterprise. There is little pressure let-up; members of the group must be kept “revved up” on a continual basis.

The cult leader always takes the major credit for the movement’s accomplishments. Members become psychologically dependent upon him. “What would we ever do without our leader?,” is the cult mentality.

(4) The cult leader generates within his members “a polarized” mentality. His people evolve an “us-versus-them” mentality. Little-by-little he criticizes other groups with which his members might tend to associate, undermining confidence in them, attempting to discredit anyone who could have influence over his “flock.”

Cult members become suspicious; they imbibe the critical disposition. No one is really as “sound” as “we” are. We are an “elitist” group. And so, seeds of isolationism are sown. The movement leader discourages reading any material, examining any ideas that he does not generate. He seeks to control the inflow of knowledge relative to “his group.”

Kip McKean actually has charged his followers not to read certain books dealing with “mind control,” characterizing any breach of this rule as “sin” (Steve Hassan, Releasing the Bonds, p. xvii). “Jehovah’s Witnesses” generally will not read any literature other than that published by the Watch Tower association.

(5) The cult leader has a clearly defined “anti-authoritarian” disposition. Within the context of the church, for instance, he would have an “anti-elder” attitude. Elders would be recipients of constant critical remarks. No cult leader would affiliate himself with a congregation having elders to whom he must be in submission. “Control” could not be maintained in such an environment.

The cult leader would constantly criticize preachers, particularly those whose knowledge of the Scriptures eclipse his own. Members must be made to feel that he is the “chief authority” in spiritual matters.

(6) Cult members are seen occasionally to take on a new personality. They begin to act differently. They become increasingly antagonistic to family members and long-time friends. They may even boast that, “I am not the old [name] that you used to know; I am a new person now.” And indeed they are. They have become strangers to those who knew them well. They have been transformed into the image of their leader.

Source: christiancourier.com