Robert Lifton's "Thought Reform" List And Others Fail [Revised]

Though "brainwashing" has been debunked by Robbins and Anthony (See my previous blog post, Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Destructive Cult?), there are methods that seem to simulate the effects of mind control. Shying away from the terms "mind control" and "brainwashing" for the reasons stated above, psychiatrist Robert Lifton coined the term "thought reform" in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. This uses a mix of voluntary and involuntary methods to control information and the thoughts that result, based upon his previous work that highlights eight factors in coercive techniques.

Lifton highlights these eight factors that contribute to thought reform: milieu control, mystical manipulation, demand for purity, confession, sacred science, loading the language, doctrine over person, and dispensing of existence. Let us cover each of these. The problem not stated by those who use Robert Lifton's work, is that physical isolation and the threat and presence of physical violence must take place or else no coercion takes place. And even if coercion is present, no true conversion has ever been demonstrated to take place. Thus, what remains is only influences that are present in every government, organization and family.

So let's examine Robert Lifton's list.

Milieu control is the control of information through isolation or a vow of secrecy. To achieve this, you must isolate an individual from uncontrolled sources of information or protect the information from leaving the group. Physical isolation is a primary component to coercion.

This usually involves setting up a base camp away from common social outlets and external media influences. It often involves controlling the flow of information and who possesses it. Note that all but the UFO cults that committed or attempted suicide exercised this level of control over their members; instead, secrecy under threat of death served the same purpose.

A religion that does not achieve the isolation of its members or information cannot be said to be using this method of control. They can ask their members to isolate themselves, but if they do not enact any punishment for not doing so, there cannot even be implied milieu control.

Mystical manipulation is the production of spontaneous experiences that were planned and orchestrated to appear as mystical events. This is usually the purview of shysters and charlatans who use the faith of gullible individuals to acquire money. But it can also be used to further influence the faith of individuals and crowds to become more devoted to the religion. Simple claims to visions and prophecy have been used to similar, though lesser effect.

The declaration of a leader as a divinely chosen potentate can have a profound effect upon the laity's dependence upon the words of that leader. So such often becomes a primary component of destructive cults.

Demand for purity provides a view of the world as black and white in which the members are exhorted to conform to an ideology of perfection. The problem with this as part of the list is that most religions in the world have this qualification and very few of them ever prove themselves destructive in the nature demonstrated by the cults mentioned previously. In fact, the demand for purity is typically contrary to the demands of suicide and murder.

However, add to this demand a distortion of what qualifies as "purity" and you can end up with greater control. For instance, many of the UFO cults redefine definitions of what "sacrifice" means, or exactly what is needed to achieve "cleanliness".

Confession of sins, as defined by the group, are given to a personal monitor or to the congregation. This is another situation in which most religions have required confession of one kind or other, usually resulting in no damage to the members of its religion, and giving absolutely no impetus to go out and cause such damage.

Some, such as Catholics, require an anonymous confession of all sins to a qualified man. Some, such as Pentecostals, require open public confession of all sins, no matter how humiliating or damaging to one's self or others. Others require only the confession to qualified men of serious sins that were of a public nature. And still others require one only to confess their sins to God, Jesus or a saint in personal prayer. While confession can free one's conscience from the pains of past acts, it cannot, by nature, incite bad acts or make one susceptible to be incited to bad acts.

However, when you introduce the confession, not just of previous acts, but of thoughts and temptations, then you get into an area of excessive submission that evinces a trust that cannot be easily broke and which the leadership can use against the individual to make them feel guilty, worthless and dependent upon the forgiveness of the continual leader.

Confession of the knowledge of the actions of others becomes a matter of course or else the individual would be complacent by the group's standards. This produces a need in the confessor to seek approval from the leadership.

Sacred science is a doctrine or ideology that is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. As to whether the "sacred science" is dangerous is dependent upon the doctrine itself. If the doctrine is broad and results in deaths to otherwise healthy individuals, then it is certainly dangerous. But if the doctrine is completely harmless, not posing a danger to anyone and not influencing individuals to be susceptible to the blind direction of a leader, then it cannot be said to be destructive or dangerous in any way.

A doctrine that requires one to go to war for their country when they need them, regardless of conscription or draft status, would be destructive, as it causes the death of many it sends off to war. A religion that encourages its members to fight against any group, governmental, religious or otherwise, would be destructive. A religion that tells its members to refuse all medical treatments could be said to be destructive. A religion that refuses to go to war or refuses a particular medical treatment that has been proven to invite disease could not be shown to be destructive on the grounds of "sacred science".

Sacred Science often involves a loaded language of pseudo-scientific terms and a disregard for actual science, even declaring science to be wicked, an aberration and an affront to God.

Loading the language with words and phrases in ways the outside world does not understand. Most religions have their own vocabulary, much of which the details usually have to be explained, but which are generally understood in a preliminary hearing. For instance, "disfellowshipping", also known as "excommunication", is a term used in many religious and non-religious organizations alike, but when one hears it, they may have an immediate concept of the word, but they may not fully understand how it applies or what the rules for it are.

Nomenclature is common to pretty much every organization. The tendency to name things has been around since the beginning of language, so having nomenclature is not itself sufficient grounds for identifying a religion as destructive or even a cult. Otherwise, Robert Lifton would have to name himself for coining the term "thought reform". But when they use such terms not just to sound unique, but to isolate their members from the world around them, then it can become a means of control and alienation from the world around them.

Some may even create terms to apply to other religions to make them sound cult-like, such as terms like "works-learning", referring to the accompanying one's faith with good works (James 2:14-26), being used to make another religion sound alien and scary with an odd-sounding inexact term; such are control methods to keep their members from interacting with those of specific faiths or even in society in general. They might even have a whole list of such terms for external organizations and for society.

Perhaps what is really meant through this inclusion is not just having a specific vocabulary, but by redefining words in ways unrelated to their actual meaning in the common tongue so as to incite isolation or destructive ends, such as Heaven's Gate redefining the meaning of suicide. Also by inventing terms that sound bizarre to the rest of the world.

Doctrine over person insists that any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. Putting aside the fact that Robert Lifton himself performs such "doctrine over person" in his own work, as exemplified in his inclusion of such harmless factors as confession or the demand for purity in this list, it is true that the forced reinterpretation of an ideology can be used to manipulate the minds of believers to conform and be lead down the primrose path to destruction.

However, in most cases, this is just a matter of the external application of denial and realignment that exists in just about every walk of life. Before the airplane, many said (including some great thinkers of the day) that man would never fly, and when the first successful flight occurred for fifteen seconds, a few inches off the ground, they modified their belief, saying "if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings". (Samuel Clemens) When the first successful flight occurred, they again modified it and said that it would result in the Icarus effect and many pilots would die.

These things are still taking place today in many walks of life, not just religion. When one's faith in reality as they know it is challenged, the first thing they do is go into denial mode and then when it is confirmed, they modify the meaning of the event; it is just natural human behavior. So this too is not an indicator that a religion is "destructive" or that it qualifies under the above definition of a "cult". But yes, it can be used as a control mechanism. A tool hammer can be used for killing, but that does not automatically make the person who wields it to hammer nails a murderer.

Dispensing of existence grants the group or its leader the right to decide who lives and who dies. This is the true measure of what constitutes a destructive cult. More of a specific doctrine than thought reform, people can certainly be influenced through intimidation if they believe their lives are in danger.

This can be used to keep members from exiting the group or from contacting the authorities or from defying the dictates of the group or its leader. It is the one thing that we can be certain was common among all the groups mentioned previously. It is one of the two necessary components to coercion, but it is not capable of forcing conversion except in fear. Once the fear is removed, any sort of conversion is reversed.

So having taken a look at these in detail, we see that only milieu control, sacred science, loading the language (to produce isolation) and doctrine over person can be rightfully associated as control mechanisms, but even if they are all present, they cannot automatically distinguish a religion as "destructive" or a "cult"; even atheists use some of these methods on a daily basis.

A person could identify any religion in the world as a "destructive cult" using these qualifications unless you take those qualifications to the extreme in each instance. No wonder they are not accepted as legitimate criteria by governments who keep an eye on destructive cults. Only the doctrine of dispensing of existence

can be seen as overtly dangerous or destructive.

Destructive Cult Identifiers by Others             
Following are more factors suggested by others. These include: Forced conversion or re-education, authoritarian power structure, divine leadership, deceitful recruitment, demanding all property, demographic targeting, sense fulfillment, love bombing and militant "us vs. them" rhetoric.

Forced conversion or re-education involves holding the individual for many hours, usually days, applying "thought reform" practices, and depriving them of sleep, food, etc. in order to facilitate their emotional, mental and spiritual breakdown so that they will abandon their heretical beliefs and adopt the belief systems of the indoctrinater; in some cases holding them against their will, intimidating, threatening and physically abusing them. (This is not actually brainwashing or mind control, but a domination of the person's will, putting them into perpetual survival mode, perceiving that they must obey in order for the abuse to subside, even submitting themselves voluntarily to the practice to prevent greater abuse or loss of self-determination. Once they are assured of safety or get a chance to flee, they may begin to denounce the cult.)

There is no doubt that this would clearly mark a religion as a "destructive cult". This is a reprehensible practice. Whereas there were accusations made against various religions of forced conversion or re-education being performed to recruit members in the 60's and 70's, it was only one single cult, the Friends, along with the Anti-Cult Movement and the Counter-Cult Movement who were ever shown to practice kidnapping and physical abuse. It is interesting that those seeking to "deprogram" or "exit counsel" (As the ACM called it) members of suspected cults ended up using the very same methods they claim that the accused cults were using, but were not. They even did this to some of Jehovah's Witnesses.

While the modern "exit counseling" does not perform kidnappings and physical abuse as they did in the 1970's, those who practice it still use coercive and mentally abusive tactics to achieve its aims. Interestingly, no members of the ACM or CCM were ever tried for their crimes. The Church of Scientology, the UFO religion formed by L. Ron Hubbard, is currently criticized for its "Auditing" (re-education) and "Introspection Rundown" (dealing with psychotic episodes involving repeated Auditing in isolation for possibly weeks) practices. Though not currently practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant sects, for hundreds of years torture was a prominent feature of their dealing with those having different beliefs from the church who refused to convert and involved all manner of physical and mental tortures and deprivation. Those accused of witchcraft would be forcibly converted with torture and then "mercifully" executed.

Authoritarian power structure centers control of the religion at the top. I have to ask: name a religion that does not? Clearly this is not a reliable way of determining a religion as a "destructive cult". Nor does it give a religion any greater means of controlling the lives of its members than a decentralized power structure. However, even if there were religions with decentralized power structures, an authoritative power structure is going to be a hallmark of destructive cults in that it is difficult to get everyone as money-hungry or perverse in their thinking as the individuals who start it. Thus, while not a means of control, it would be difficult for a decentralized organization to end up destructive, and a decentralized power structure will almost always end up splintering smaller and smaller until someone usurps the original organization, as occurs in politics. However, even early Christianity was centralized, first with Jesus, then with the apostles, and then with the "apostles and older men in Jerusalem". (Acts 15:2)

Divine leadership identify themselves as God, the second coming of Jesus or the only person(s) capable of interpreting the Bible properly. Again, this is the purview of most religions. The beliefs are arranged by a few that the rest must accept. Often, it is just one. In fact, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are each based on the espoused doctrine of singular individuals. (Namely, Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammad respectively.) So clearly, there's no grounds for including this in the list that identifies a "destructive cult" unless you specifically isolate "messianic leader", and even then only if they require things of their membership that is at odds with common religious ideals or is dangerous.

Deceitful recruitment, sending out members to recruit at events and locations; when they get into a conversation, they may say they believe something, usually being in agreement with the beliefs of the individual they approached, but later, after the individual has already gone somewhere they cannot leave of their own accord, whether a secret room or building or a whole religious compound, to discover that the teachings are actually different than what they thought or that they did not realize they were being recruited by a religion at all, or if promises are made about what they should expect at the gathering that are not fulfilled.

Demanding all property be given in either a will or as part of membership is one of the more common practices that can be found among both destructive cults and shyster-run evangelical religions. Destructive cults most often request the money and property up front as part of membership, usually through some means of deceit. While people often donate their property or will their property to a religious group, this does not automatically mean that the religious group has requested such. But where a religion requires such, this should be an indicator that there is something not right. This has been used by many destructive cults and shysters.

Demographic targeting is when a religion specifically focuses its recruitment efforts on a single demographic of individuals for the reason that those individuals are susceptible. This is not simply adapting the message to a demographic, but specifically focusing all efforts on that demographic. This most often occurs by Christian youth organizations targeting teenagers because they recognize that peer pressure is most effective among teens as well as teens are most susceptible to new experiences and teachings, while their minds are not developed enough to critically challenge what they are taught, getting them in a location that is usually unsupervised by parents. The best defense in this regard is just not to let the teenager go there, but the next best thing is for a parent to find out what the teenager is being taught and attend a rally. If parents are not allowed at the rally, this should be a clear sign that something is off, even dangerous. If allowed to attend, the parent should listen to what is taught to find out if there are any isolationist tactics applied and any reference to the teenagers needing to sacrifice themselves in some way in the future. This is one of the most pervasive methods of recruitment and the most dangerous to youths.

Sense fulfillment is a method used to attract and keep members. This can occur through promises of emotional and physical sensory enjoyment fulfilled through means of emotional rapture, sexual fulfillment or cathartic release. This is a particularly effective means by which destructive cults and con artists dupe unsuspecting individuals into joining to obtain the fulfillment of sensual desires. However, it is not in itself a destructive practice and does not automatically mean the group using it is destructive.

Love bombing is when members are asked to greet people at the door or in the foyer of their meeting place. This is a practice performed by most customer-based businesses. They often require that their employees remain smiling. In religion, this is just simply a good practice to not only help new visitors feel more comfortable, it also encourages members to be more open and not isolate themselves. It is an exercise in showing love, helping people to open up and make friends. Without displays of love, it is difficult to help people to become loving and through such displays learn to overcome antisocial tendencies common in the world. This also encourages them to adopt strong friendships within the organization and encourages them to overcome differences and perceived sleights. Besides this, it can help pull one out of a funk. Really, the practice of love bombing works contrary to the spirit needed for individuals to perform murders or suicides and is rare among destructive cults and common among successful businesses with happy employees, so this can hardly be said to be destructive by any stretch of the imagination. It engenders loyalty and a feeling of belonging because of helping form lasting connections, which most psychologist consider healthy behavior when practiced by individuals and families not associated with any religion. Many religions simply treat this as sour grapes because they don't have the same love among their own members, nor have they succeeded in using love bombing to good effect.

Militant "us vs. them" rhetoric by a religion can keep the membership on edge and ready to go to war. An unusually large number of religions practice this, and is still the source of inflammatory rhetoric leading to wars such as the Catholic vs. Protestant wars in Ireland and parts of Africa. This sort of talk should raise a red flag in one's mind. Simply identifying those who may have cause to harm the religion isn't actually dangerous, as the Bible gives examples of the early Christians concerning themselves with such discussion, but when such talk becomes loud and militant, it can quickly turn destructive, resulting in mobs and local wars. Such rhetoric is what leads nations to war with the majority support of its populace. It is the most prevalent quality among destructive cults, leading to the doctrine of dispensing of existence.

So now we have a more effective list of identifying a destructive cult. A destructive cult is likely to use one or more of the following that distinguish it from mainstream religions: the doctrine of dispensing of existence, forced conversions, deceitful recruitment, demanding all property, demographic targeting, sense fulfillment, and/or militant "us vs. them" rhetoric.

But does such a culture of "thought reform" exist among Jehovah's Witnesses? Do they expect their members to "put faith in every word"? (Proverbs 14:15) Or to do things that are murderous or dangerous to their health?

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a "Destructive Cult"?

Jehovah's Witnesses not only do not believe in blind faith, they encourage their membership to "make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine" and to use their "power of reason". (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Romans 12:1) They actually encourage their members to ask questions and perform personal study separate from the study articles and meetings. (Watchtower 2010 7/15 page 4, paragraphs 15, 16) They have written multiple articles about how cults lure in people who are weak in spirit and in their ability to think out their way. They use the Bible as their sole guide to doctrine, rejecting the man-made doctrines and philosophies of men. (Colossians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:13) They reject the trappings of beautiful edifices, statuary and other physical representations that many churches use to lure people in spite of their lack of supportable doctrine. (1 John 5:21; Ezekiel 23:14)

Many have identified the destruction of the current world order by Jesus Christ at Armageddon with destructive cults, and because of this, assume that because Jehovah's Witnesses teach this, they must be a destructive cult. This, however, is a common teaching, not just of destructive cults, but of many other established, even "ancient" Christian faiths, including Catholics and Baptists. But the outstanding difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions that teach the end of the world, is that Jehovah's Witnesses teach their members to "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah". (2 Chronicles 20:17) Yes, they are taught that they will actually do nothing but "go into [their] interior rooms" on the day of Armageddon. (Isaiah 26:20) They know that they will have no part in the destruction of this system of things. Will they be instructed to commit suicide at that time? Of course not. Because not only have they been taught that suicide is a gross disregard for human life, they have also been taught that it can destroy their chances at resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses even prohibit the use of guns for home defense and refuse to go to war or serve in a military for any capacity. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

With such a record of respect for life and encouragement to actually use their thinking abilities, it is very difficult to pin the epithet "destructive cult" on Jehovah's Witnesses, because if they were a destructive cult, they would be shooting themselves in the foot in every possible way with such measures. Yet some still manage to accuse them on very shaky grounds; grounds that have been rejected by greater authorities on cult activities.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses use milieu control? Not in the sense highlighted by Robert Lifton. Jehovah's Witnesses attend congregations the same as most other religions. Rather than being isolated, Jehovah's Witnesses have continual contact with people in the outside world, not just in the house-to-house ministry, but at their jobs and in their neighborhoods, interacting as anyone else does. However, in line with Paul's and John's instructions, (Romans 16:17; 2 John 10-11) they do not mingle with those who are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses or discuss their literature, but they will talk to others who challenge their beliefs. Sure, some shy away, but that is their personal inclination, it is not what they are taught to do. They are also taught to minimize their reading of literature with contrary doctrines, not to completely divorce themselves from it, but to minimize contact, as even constant exposure to anything can lead one away from what they previously knew to be true. The governments use such tactics as information overload all the time, hoping that people will forget what the truth once was. The only secrets Jehovah's Witnesses keep are those kept by the elders regarding a person's confessed sins.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not practice mystical manipulation. While there have been events performed by Jehovah's Witnesses that they recognize as fulfilling prophecy, it is not until many years later that they recognize such things as doing so and never in grandiose or miraculous ways. They are typically mundane events such as simply preaching or surviving a specific ordeal over which they had no control, such as Hitler's planned extermination of Jehovah's Witnesses. Though some of the membership attempted identifying specific years in which Jesus would return or the end of the world might occur, even pushing such agenda when they had the opportunity to write articles for the publications, the majority of the membership did not hold to such dates. Whenever such dates would appear, there were generally counter articles that would appear telling the members not to look to dates, citing the scripture at Matthew 24:36. In the last incident regarding 1992, the article writer ended up being disfellowshipped. The article writer regarding the 1975 date ended up leaving from the organization in 1980. From 1994 on, a new method of editing the articles was adopted and now doctrine is watched more carefully. See the 2011 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, under "Highlights of the past year", pp.9-13 for details about their current method of rigorous fact checking they have been doing since 2000. a level of fact checking you won't find with any other religion. That is why opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses have to go so far back in our publications to find mistakes

The demand for purity, being common among many religions, is also found among Jehovah's Witnesses. Cleanliness and high moral standards are the means by which Jehovah's Witnesses demonstrate their love for Jehovah God and neighbor. It is no more destructive than taking a shower, wearing clean clothes, being nice to one's mother-in-law or setting a fine example for work ethic at one's place of employment. This is not actually common among destructive cults, and where it is demonstrated among them, it is excessive to the degree of death or mental or physical torture for disobedience. While one can be disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses for uncleanness or repeated or unrepentant unlawful conduct, such as fornication or theft, there is no verbal nor public chastisement (beyond stating that a particular person has been reproved [not announcing the person's sin] and having a public talk at another time on the type of sin, not identifying the person who did it, as the mildest possible way of complying with Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, as we do not seek to make them public spectacles; Matthew 1:18-19), nor anything more.

Jehovah's Witnesses do have confession to qualified elders in private for sins made public or for which there was one or more victims. This serves to give the elders a means to help the one who sinned to work out repentance. (2 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Jehovah's Witnesses have a "sacred science" regarding adaptive creation over evolution, as with many Christian and Muslim religions. In fact, the view of evolution is still well within its own realm of unproven sacred science of wishful thinking. On the other hand, while our stand on blood transfusions is accused of being sacred science, it is actually proving otherwise. We derive the view of blood transfusions from Acts 15:29, which says simply, to "abstain from blood" and deuteronomy 12:16 which says to pour it out. Jehovah gave very clear direction to Noah not to eat flesh along with the blood and that the blood is the same as its soul. (Genesis 9:4) This has given rise to many critics who claim that our stand is going too far and endangers our members and especially our children. However, at the turn of the 20th century, there was a doctor exploring bloodless medicine, but because of the callousness of his contemporaries, he was laughed out of the medical community, so no research was pursued on the subject after he committed suicide. Eventually the medical community finally gave in to the need proposed by Jehovah's Witnesses and now there is a thriving world community of bloodless medicine that is as effective, if not moreso, as blood-dependent medicine. While many died without any kind of medical help in this regard over the years to get us to this point, it was the fault of the medical community for not providing bloodless medicine for public benefit when they had the opportunity and for outright denying all treatment to Jehovah's Witnesses simply because of our stand. After all, before the advent of blood transfusions in the 17th century, most medicine was bloodless medicine (with the exception of the barbaric practices of bloodletting and eating blood), and even blood transfusions weren't as effective as modern bloodless medicine until the last half of the last century.

Not only this, but there are countless victims of blood transfusions who have died from complications caused by blood, not a few of which include diseases that get passed through the blood as well as ease of infection and blood rejection, in which the body fights the blood as a massive infection. Even now, 10 years after they discovered a way to screen blood with Chagas disease, only the richest nations are able to apply the screen, meanwhile, in poorer nations, people are still receiving transfusions with Chagas. Even still, in the richest countries, there are other diseases passed through blood transfusions that still have yet to be screened. AID's today, still has a 1 in 500,000 chance of being transmitted through blood transfusion, and in the early 80's was a prime means of contracting the disease, before it was finally screened from the blood. So bloodless medicine actually saves the Witnesses from such calamity. (After all, you can't get a disease where there is no pathogen carrier or chance of rejection.) Bloodless medicine doctors are now convinced that blood transfusions will one day be viewed as archaic, if not barbaric. So what would be called our "sacred science" by the estimation of anti-cultists is now becoming science fact.

It is true that Jehovah's Witnesses practice "loading the language" with a specific vocabulary, but so does every religion in the world. You are familiar with "key word searches" on a computer or online. Words and phrases such as "sanctification" and "ransom" carry whole doctrines associated with them. (1 Corinthians 1:30) These words are common to most protestant sects as well. Catholics have "transubstantiation" and other words that are not even in the Bible. You won't find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. You cannot have a religion without having named doctrines. Anyone that is not a member of the organization, no matter what organization it is, is an "outsider". (Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 5:12-13) Terms like "circuit overseer", "publisher" and "pioneer" are not significant to Jehovah's Witnesses on a religious level, but on a personal goal-oriented level, and do not in themselves make us feel unique or special; they're just expressions of the goals we set for ourselves or the duties we perform; we do encourage people to reach such goals in service to God. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not redefine words contrary to their original meaning, though we may attempt more exacting definitions to suit the word used in the original language, though not for the purpose of doctrinal manipulation so as to pose a danger to its members.

Jehovah's Witnesses express doctrine over person in such matters as creation over evolution and one religious idea over another. Most Christian religions hold this. It is nothing new, nor rare. It is not a control feature. It is just the holding to a principle teaching. If a member does not want to hold to that teaching, they can either keep their lips in check or leave. No one is keeping them in the organization.

Witnesses do perform love bombing to some extent, but the reality is that they are rarely asked to. I personally do this just because I like getting to know everyone, and generally I do it a whole lot more to my fellow members than to new visitors, as there are just so many in my congregation whom I still don't know well, but whom I want to. And I can't help but have a smile on my face because I truly enjoy it. I haven't been forced into it. I do it because I want to and I'm sure that's the feeling of many others in my congregation and around the world. Members often claim to feel much better after a meeting because of the love of the friends. Clearly love bombing works to positive, rather than negative, effect on all members.

Jehovah's Witnesses have never and will never hold to a doctrine of dispensing of existence, nor have they, nor will they ever perform forced conversions or re-education. Those who join Jehovah's Witnesses do so of their own initiative and only after they have been completely informed of the major doctrines we hold and why. We do not convert people and then inform them of our doctrines as many in other Christian denominations do. We don't make promises about what to expect at a meeting and then don't fulfill them. Thus, we also do not perform deceitful recruitment practices. While they do provide material designed to provide identification to various demographics, Jehovah's Witnesses do not perform demographic targeting toward any one group. They do not demand all property nor set any standards of tithing, but all are instructed to give according to what their hearts impel them to; we don't even "pass the plate". Jehovah's Witnesses teach their members to disregard sense fulfillment of physical and emotional desires in this system to obtain the simple joy of clean living without the current stresses in the new system, which does not involve the fulfillment of anything more than tasty foods shared with resurrected loved ones and the joy of being free from sin, disease and death. Jehovah's Witnesses also avoid any sort of militant "us vs. them" rhetoric; as mentioned above, they are against war, murder and suicide, but are also against rage or antagonism of any kind.

Jehovah's Witnesses, in line with the first century congregation, do hold to an authoritarian power structure and a divine leadership perspective, in that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses carefully determine doctrines acceptable for teaching within the organization. This does not, however, mean that the leadership have a direct line to God or Jesus as if speaking face-to-face. They are fallible humans and make mistakes as anyone. They have admitted their mistakes in the publications, but do not see such mistakes as reason for disbanding the organization. It is because of their humility that they make changes and press on.

What about the publications themselves? Do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watch Tower Society's (This is merely a legal entity) publications equal to or near equal to the Bible as some claim? No. The Bible is the ultimate authority to Jehovah's Witnesses. But Jehovah's Witnesses take seriously the mandate to "speak in agreement". (1 Corinthians 1:10) The publications help keep our members on the same page, so-to-speak and well-informed of current understanding, and have proven to be an excellent means of promoting unity to a degree not seen in other religions. Do they replace the Bible or promote ideas outside the Bible? No. Just like any sermon given by a pastor, they contain ample Scripture references (I just opened one Watchtower and it had 44 Scripture references in a single five-page article; you will not get that in any sermon) and a discussion of Bible subjects. (Opposers quote our literature more than we do. We quote the Bible more than anyone else.) On the job, I had to listen to a Christian radio station, and you would be shocked to hear more than two Scripture references in any sermon.

But what the publications provide more importantly than a sermon is the means to study what is written. A sermon gives you little chance to study the exact words of what is said, but the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses not only allow Jehovah's Witnesses to examine what is said, but allows non-Jehovah's Witnesses to know what we believe and why. We have nothing to hide. People buy books and magazines about the Bible all the time, but somehow Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones sinning in providing such? Would people rather that Jehovah's Witnesses not provide a means of examining what they believe, sticking strictly to sermons that one never has access to unless they go to one of their churches? Or perhaps people just want them to write about anything else but the Bible? You're on this page reading this text, so clearly you yourself are concerned about such an issue.

Regarding disfellowshipping, Jehovah's Witnesses follow the direction of Jesus himself and of the apostle Paul, to "remove the wicked man" from the congregation by not speaking to them nor letting them have any privileges within the congregation. (Matthew 18:14-17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13) Seeing as almost every religion in the world, including the largest, such as the Roman Catholic church, practices this to some degree, (what they call "excommunication", meaning not to speak to the person) it is hardly fair to highlight Jehovah's Witnesses for it.

But lets say, for argument's sake, that Jehovah's Witnesses were the only ones. First, it is based on the words of Jesus himself, second, it protects the congregation from corruption, (1 Corinthians 5:6-7) third, it encourages repentance, (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) and finally, the rule is not the cause of any disruption to family, as some claim, but is the family member that is disfellowshipped that is the cause of the division. But then Jesus himself said he came to put a sword between family members. (Matthew 10:34-39) This is not a literal sword, but a division over belief and lifestyle, and only those who oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones who cause the destruction, not the Jehovah's Witness.

If the disfellowshipped member repents and returns, there is no damage to themselves or their family. If the disfellowshipped person lives in the household or works with the family, the family still talks to them, just not on religious matters, but strictly on household or job-related matters, nothing else. If they don't want to return, it's their own fault if they do not find a new support group; support groups are the key to surviving any emotional impact. Other factors of managing one's stress and emotions include keeping a journal or diary, having a hobby like gardening, physical exercise like walking, maintaining serotonin levels with exposure to sunlight and eating "light" foods and melatonin levels through sleep and "dark" foods, and keeping positive. If a person does not perform these survival tactics for a healthy psychological mindset, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is not to blame.

The claim that Jehovah's Witnesses exercise "mind control" originates from a disaffected witness who felt the articles he submitted were not given proper attention. He claimed those at the headquarters were driven constantly so that they could not think, but is this the case for all Witnesses? No. I once did a calculation of all the time I had available for personal study and pursuits after the minimum recommended study schedule and found that after all the hours spent on a job, sleeping, showering, cooking, driving and studying the week's publications, I had 53.8 hours available in the week (7.68 hrs/day avg.). Even after including my own very intense personal Bible study, which also includes reputable non-Jehovah's Witness literature, I still had 28.8 hrs/wk available. So I was not overworked.

But what of the claims that Jehovah's Witnesses control the lives of their members? I've been a member of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 15 years and not once have I ever felt like the organization or the elders were controlling my life, though I have at times resented the requirements of shaving my beard or wearing business suits, but these are not actually burdensome requests. They do not come to my home, and they do not dictate to me what I need to do at any given time. Participation is strictly voluntary. They have only ever visited me to encourage me to return to the congregation when I fell inactive. They were not persistent and did not scold or threaten me. They attempted to shepherd me in a kindly manner, as they are directed to do. (1 Peter 5:2-3)

Yes, there are extra-biblical rules that I'd prefer were not required, but they're not burdensome and most are flexible according to circumstances or personal conscience, such as reporting field service. Not reporting one's time will not earn them disfellowshipping, but reporting time helps the organization know what kind of effort the member is making and how much time they have available, thus is a means by which members can be eligible to greater service within the organization, such as qualifying as a ministerial servant or elder. (Mark 4:24-25) In fact, without counting time for a two consecutive months, one simply falls off the rolls, (Not counted towards membership numbers,) considered "inactive", until they report time again. This is considered a cause for concern for the individual's spirituality, and you cannot be eligible to greater service within the congregation unless reporting time, but that is because the ministry is a necessary part of being a Christian. (Matthew 28:19-20; Romans 10:13-15; 1 Corinthians 9:16-17)

Some would have people believe that individual Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to have websites, but I have operated this site since 2006 and not once have I ever been asked to desist, because I have kept things within the reasonable parameters requested. What are those parameters? 1) Do not produce information for the purpose of instructing Jehovah's Witnesses, (1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 13; 2 Timothy 2:2) 2) speak in agreement with the organization, (2 Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 2:2-4) 3) provide it for a witness, (1 Corinthians 10:31) 4) do not create social networking sites for Jehovah's Witnesses, (Hebrews 10:24-25; Jude 3-4, 10-13) and 5) do not interact with, quote or allow statements from apostates. (2 John 2:9-11)

What are the reasons for these mandates? That we maintain unity within the congregation. (Ephesians 4:1-6) Does it sound like an organization is going to last long if everyone has their own ideas? If a person does not want to believe or practice as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are free to leave the organization at any time and go someplace they feel more comfortable or start their own religion to suit themselves. No one is going to stop them, though they may get a single shepherding call, in which all they have to say is that they've made up their mind and are not interested. We have no re-education camps, no mandatory intensive indoctrination sessions, no youth camps, and no overbearing clergy class. Be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or do not. Simple as that.

So what Jehovah's Witnesses can confirm is that we practice the essentially harmless traits of demand for purity, confession, sacred science, loading the language, doctrine over person, authoritative power structure and divine leadership (not in the strictest sense), and love bombing. I challenge anyone to name one religion that does not have any of these. Some powerful and even "orthodox" religions that demonstrate all of these include Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox Catholics, most Presbyterians, most Baptist denominations, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Church of the Nazarene, most Muslim faiths, Mormons, most Hindu and Buddhist sects, orthodox Jews, and with less common denominations, the list goes on and on. Some of the destructive cults mentioned in this article lacked the demand for purity, confession and submission to an authoritative power structure built around a group rather than a single individual. 

The Claims Against Jehovah's Witnesses Fail                                   

So clearly, the claims about Jehovah's Witnesses being a destructive cult using the criteria in Robert Lifton's Thought Reform list are unfounded. Jehovah's Witnesses have not been shown to be destructive, unless Jesus Christ himself could be shown to be destructive. The unbiased scientists and researchers mentioned above and in the previous article have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are no threat to society or its members and are therefore not a destructive sect, physically or psychologically.

---

The previous blog post in this series is Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Destructive Cult?
The next blog post in this series is A Toothless BITE: An Analysis of Steve Hassan's "Anti-cult" B.I.T.E. Model.
The final blog post in this series is How to Really Identify Destructive Cults (Information You Can Actually Use).