The BITE Model and Mormon Control

[lunaverse]

I have a new paper up.

I'm not as happy with this one, because it's longer therefore harder to edit, and I started writing it months ago when I didn't know very much about this stuff. I'm sure it's terribly awkward in places, boring in others, and repeitive, so please please offer me critiques and suggestions. Even if it's something simple, like "In the 'time committment' section, it just drones on and on and it made me fall asleep". ... of course, in that particular case, it could be the fault of the Church... Just thinking about all that work makes me sleepy, too.

But you get the idea. :)

Also, it's really long... so you don't have to read it if you don't want to. You'll just suffer eternal damnation if you don't. (Hey, I might be able to get the hang of this brainwashing thing...)

http://www.rationalrevelation.com/library/bite.html

I'm planning to send this to Steve Hassan, author of the BITE model. His site makes brief mention of Mormonism, and has a couple of BITE model comparisons written by ex-Mormons, but mine is better. ;)

Luna

[miss taken]

Hi Luna, this is another one that I am going to have to print off and read on paper.

When using the words 'cult' and 'brainwashing' they can mean so many different things to so many different people and are so emotionally charged that I think it is really important to define terms right at the beginning.

They also carry negative connotations and actually sometimes may have quite positve outcomes.

To what extent are all religions indeed all ethical systems cultic, or imbibed with brainwashing techniques?

To what extent are parents, teachers and any other socialisers, brainwashers?

To what extent does personality play a part in the ease with which one can be taken in by any belief system?

To what extent does life circumstance make one person more vulnerable than another, and are the outcomes sometimes good? (ie when a person say converts to Islam on marrying a spouse)

Just some questions that have been bandying about in my mind over the last few weeks.

I havn't read the paper yet. As I say will print it off.

Thanks

Mary


Also to add....To what extent was the Jewish, and later the Jesus movement cultic. Was he a cultist (he certainly appears so in some sections of the gospels) or have his words been twisted to bring about a more cultic regime?

Did Jesus infact begin a 'church' or was that a later addition?

Sorry,!!!!lots of questions...not many answers...!!!

[lunaverse]

When using the words 'cult' and 'brainwashing' they can mean so many different things to so many different people and are so emotionally charged that I think it is really important to define terms right at the beginning.

This is true. I'm trying not to be repetitive between my papers, so that people reading all of them won't get too bored by reading near-identical intros.

I think I will write a separate paper that talks specifically about what thought reform means and the various degrees to which it exists (i.e. advertising vs. David Koresh and everything in between). I'll probably attach a "Read me first!" disclaimer on it on my website.

To what extent are all religions indeed all ethical systems cultic, or imbibed with brainwashing techniques?

My current opinion is that Christianity as a whole makes a very good foundation for coersive persuasion. Concepts of heaven and hell, angels and devils, all carry the seeds of fear. Concepts of sin and atonement are embedded with an automatic guilt/shame complex. Some Christian churches seem to escape these by being very open and flexible (Anglican, and some others), but most manipulate to one degree or another.

Certainly Christian history is about as coercive as you can get. At one time, Catholicism had total control over the minds of nearly every individual in the populous of Europe, and had the rights to physically discipline people who got out of line. This is analogous to Communist and other totalitarian regiems today. We look at the Inquisition, and the treatment various free-thinkers prior to the Enlightment, and you have an example of a cult that has achieved perfect control over entire nations.

To what extent are parents, teachers and any other socialisers, brainwashers?

When I first read the BITE model, I jokingly began to apply it to public school... and suddenly it became a little frightening. :) I haven't further pursued thinking along those lines, probably because it's too frightening or conspiracy-theorist. (BTW, at least one book has gone down these lines. In the Illuminatus Trilogy (Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea), there is a scene where the protagonist is being "deprogrammed" from the brainwashing of society. He learns that in school, children were hypnotized, and no longer remember the trauma during these times. As a test to make sure people are properly controlled, they are taught to black out the word "Fnord", which is published mid-sentence EVERYWHERE. The protagonist begins to see this word everywhere, and knows the deprogramming has worked.)

I believe brainwashing exists to a certain extent in government and society at large, but because of the Bill of Rights, a culture of individualism, and mostly-free access to information (thank the internet!), it's not as total as it could be. The American population is very diverse, so it's harder to keep all of us in line all the time, as it is with the smaller, more isolated-interest groups that cults are.

Essentially, when people consent to things they are not fully informed about, it carries with it a certain level of brainwashing, i.e. people are persuaded to beliefs that do not match reality, and it happens all the time in the realm of politics, commsumerism, and religion.

As far as family situations, they have found many similarities between cults and dysfunctional familes. Which is why I lean more to the theory of natural cult development rather than premeditation. Just like abusive parents who don't *plan* to be evil, cult leaders often find themselves in positions of power due to acting like their natural selves, possibily using skills they learned at home.

To what extent does personality play a part in the ease with which one can be taken in by any belief system?

To what extent does life circumstance make one person more vulnerable than another, and are the outcomes sometimes good? (ie when a person say converts to Islam on marrying a spouse)

I'm planning to write a piece on the factors that contribute to the extent to which one can be controlled and harmed. I'll probably present it as a post so there can be discussion and contributions. Briefly, some of these factors include temperment (personality, i.e. Keirsey/Meyers-Briggs), your family's attitudes growing up, whether there was prior trauma and/or domestic abuse, how seriously the doctrine was taken, level of autonomy/individualism, self-esteem, social skills, how involved your current family is, whether you were converted or BIC, level of participation (served a mission, attended temple, held a high leadership position, is employed by the Church), etc. This is going to require a lot more research and thought to flesh out, though.

Also to add....To what extent was the Jewish, and later the Jesus movement cultic. Was he a cultist (he certainly appears so in some sections of the gospels) or have his words been twisted to bring about a more cultic regime?

Did Jesus infact begin a 'church' or was that a later addition?

This is a good question, and we certainly don't know enough about Jesus to say for sure. I'm thinking chances are good that he was a charismatic leader who won the hearts of a great many people, much like David Koresh, Tom Jones, and Joseph Smith. It's hard to say if he abused his position, or how deceptive he is. The bible has been whitewashed, and I haven't read enough apocriphal books. I did read parts of one, however, and it showed a *very* different Jesus figure... one who was rather abusive. I was still TBM at the time, so I dismissed it all as lies.. now? I'm not sure what to believe. :) Requires more research AND there may not be enough information in existence to satisfy me on this question.

Now Paul? I don't like him very much, and I'm more willing to commit to my comments about him. I think he was certainly more of a cultic figure, who could possibly have had a larger following than Jesus himself. I don't sense much sincerity from Paul. I think he was an opportunist, made up his conversion story, faked the whole "being blind" thing, so he could gain power in the new religion. Pauline doctrines are much more ... "off". More controlling, more domineering. If it hadn't been for Paul, I doubt medieval Christianity would have been so harsh.

Luna

[miss taken]

Luna, brilliant answers thanks. Enjoyed reading them greatly.

OOH I have found a soul mate, someone else who doesn't like Paul much!!!! I don't like him either.

I really look forward to reading more of your posts on this subject Luna.

Take care
Mary

(Will post responses to the article when I have digested it fully)

[why me]

My current opinion is that Christianity as a whole makes a very good foundation for coersive persuasion. Concepts of heaven and hell, angels and devils, all carry the seeds of fear. Concepts of sin and atonement are embedded with an automatic guilt/shame complex. Some Christian churches seem to escape these by being very open and flexible (Anglican, and some others), but most manipulate to one degree or another.

I think here you are refering to the more liberal churches. Recently, it has been found that these churches are losing members, mainly because they lack a coecive, conservative structure. I have thought about why this is---that liberal churches lose members. Could it be because many people are sort of looking for more control to offshoot their rootless, postmodern life?


I believe brainwashing exists to a certain extent in government and society at large, but because of the Bill of Rights, a culture of individualism, and mostly-free access to information (thank the internet!), it's not as total as it could be. The American population is very diverse, so it's harder to keep all of us in line all the time, as it is with the smaller, more isolated-interest groups that cults are.

I have to disagree and agree here. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Gulf War. I felt that the American people to a large degree (regardless of how diverse) was influenced by the government and the media to support the war through lies and deceit.

And I agree that brainwashing does exist inside various societies including American society for the reasons stated above

The culture of individualism can also foster a cultish behavior pattern especially when such culture is expounded inside american classrooms. I recently began a discussion with one of my classes about the 'cult of efficiency' based on an article written by a european professor. She used the term: cult of efficiency. This professor described the effects of efficiency on the population at large.

But of course the class and I had to verify whether such a cult exists. The conclusion of the students was that we do live in a cult of efficiency. I think that if this is so, this can be related to economic individualism.

Essentially, when people consent to things they are not fully informed about, it carries with it a certain level of brainwashing, i.e. people are persuaded to beliefs that do not match reality, and it happens all the time in the realm of politics, commsumerism, and religion.

But consumerism is reality and the urge to consume is throughout the world economy. We just need to look at consumer debt.

In order to make consumerism a social reality, various influences of control need to take shape and begin to influence a society's behaviorism. Hence, there can be a 'cult of consumerism' also.

Now Paul? I don't like him very much, and I'm more willing to commit to my comments about him. I think he was certainly more of a cultic figure, who could possibly have had a larger following than Jesus himself. I don't sense much sincerity from Paul. I think he was an opportunist, made up his conversion story, faked the whole "being blind" thing, so he could gain power in the new religion. Pauline doctrines are much more ... "off". More controlling, more domineering. If it hadn't been for Paul, I doubt medieval Christianity would have been so harsh.

Good point! I have often said that if the church is a cult the roots of the cult start with Paul. And yet, most christian churches base their teachings on Paul. Although perhaps the more liberal churches now tend to perhaps ignore his teachings.

I put a lot of responsibility on Paul. But I am not sure that Peter was different. In Peter's church the group had to sell their property and give all to the group. Supposively, they lived well and were prosperous together.

But if this is true that the early christians were living in a cult, then this would negate christianity in its totality and this can basically mean that all churches are bogus because a cult spawned them all. Hence, if a person leaves the LDS church and enters into another church, the person is just exchanging one cult for another cult.

[bigeddy]

I read (quickly) your article and really enjoyed it. In the section about outright lieing you stated that Paul Dunn was an apostle. This is not accurate. He was a member of the First Quorum of Seventy. Also, in this section it could be added that Dallin Oaks (who is an apostle) lied very openly about the condition of Pres. Benson. Steve Benson then pressured him to get honest. His statement the next day is a classic. He said (concerning his own statement made a day or two previous) "I cannot support the truth of that statement." What a Fupped way to say "I lied through my teeth."

Oaks also openly lied in a meeting concerning the church's involvement with the Utah State Legislature when they passed a bill concerning priest-penitent priviledge. He told a group of therapists working with victims and offenders that the church had nothing to do with the passing of the law that protected Bishops and etc from not contacting authorities when an offender confessed. What he said was an outright fabrication of the truth.

Ed

[miss taken]

I read (quickly) your article and really enjoyed it. In the section about outright lieing you stated that Paul Dunn was an apostle. This is not accurate. He was a member of the First Quorum of Seventy. Also, in this section it could be added that Dallin Oaks (who is an apostle) lied very openly about the condition of Pres. Benson. Steve Benson then pressured him to get honest. His statement the next day is a classic. He said (concerning his own statement made a day or two previous) "I cannot support the truth of that statement." What a Fupped way to say "I lied through my teeth."

Oaks also openly lied in a meeting concerning the church's involvement with the Utah State Legislature when they passed a bill concerning priest-penitent priviledge. He told a group of therapists working with victims and offenders that the church had nothing to do with the passing of the law that protected Bishops and etc from not contacting authorities when an offender confessed. What he said was an outright fabrication of the truth.

Ed


Ah but Big Eddy, that's okay... cause it's lying for the Lord. !!! :D :D :D

Mary

[free thinker]

First Luna


I have not read your paper. Probably later. But I do want to tell you:

Love the Avatar! It is such a perfect fit for you I think.


Big Eddy thanks.

Oaks also openly lied in a meeting concerning the church's involvement with the Utah State Legislature when they passed a bill concerning priest-penitent priviledge. He told a group of therapists working with victims and offenders that the church had nothing to do with the passing of the law that protected Bishops and etc from not contacting authorities when an offender confessed. What he said was an outright fabrication of the truth.

Ed


I would add that Gordon B Hinckley is a liar also. He has dissembled at least as much. I do not think these men have any compunction whatever when it comes to lying to pursue their agenda of growing the church in numbers, and wealth, and protecting it from scrutiny.


This all began with Joseph Smith. He set the pattern
and they all follow it in one form or another. The new church history building will be a monument to this strategy. Think about it. It will be a whole building dedicated to the history of the church, but will not include the archives in whole. Now that is a deception and a fraud.

free thinker

[lunaverse]

I think here you are refering to the more liberal churches. Recently, it has been found that these churches are losing members, mainly because they lack a coecive, conservative structure. I have thought about why this is---that liberal churches lose members. Could it be because many people are sort of looking for more control to offshoot their rootless, postmodern life?

Another explanation is that the rift between people who need/want/choose religion and those who don't is growing. i.e. why join a liberal chuch when you can spend your time doing something more interesting? Those who are more apt to be strictly religious will want to take a firmer stand in the face of what they see as declining morals, terrorism, and scary natural disasters. (And by so doing, some of their actions are further alienate those who are apt to join liberal churchs!) The lukewarm place in the middle gets smaller.

I just joined up with the Unitarians, and they fill their chapel for two sermons every Sunday. I don't think they're shrinking. ;) But for a city of this size, there aren't a whole lot of UU buildings.


I have to disagree and agree here. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Gulf War. I felt that the American people to a large degree (regardless of how diverse) was influenced by the government and the media to support the war through lies and deceit.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, or some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time." Coming from a man over which there is some controversy, but no one ever hears about it -- most people think they should love him, though there's real evidence he was a rat bastard. ;) Abe Lincoln.

[COLOR=DarkRed]
In order to make consumerism a social reality, various influences of control need to take shape and begin to influence a society's behaviorism. Hence, there can be a 'cult of consumerism' also.

I meant consumerism as a category within which people can be manipulated to a degree, i.e. not whether consuming is good, but whether buying new Nike's will make you cool, whether you want to drink Coke or Pepsi (black and white thinking? you could have ice tea instead!), whether Britnay Spears is any good at selling products when she's actually wearing clothes, things like that.

But if this is true that the early christians were living in a cult, then this would negate christianity in its totality and this can basically mean that all churches are bogus because a cult spawned them all. Hence, if a person leaves the LDS church and enters into another church, the person is just exchanging one cult for another cult.

Yes, to an extent. One is leaving say a class 6 cult for a class 3 cult. But I agree -- It annoys me when Christians talk about one religion as being a cult, but don't notice the problems with their own group.

I think that may be why so many Mormons end up atheist or agnostic or deist. Because once you see the one as bullcrap, the rest looks like bullcrap too. When you're so deeply entrenched in bullcrap, you want to get as far away from the manure factory as possible. At least, that's how it seems to many of us, no offense against Christians. :) For me, I realized that no human could ever understand any god that might exist, any more than a cow can understand human purposes, so any human or group that claimed so was insane, misguided, or lying. There was no room for Christianity in such a realization, because that put Jesus and all the OT prophets in the same category.

Luna

[lunaverse]

Thanks Ed for the comments. I'm not sure why I thought Dunn was an apostle. When in the Church I heard his name a LOT, and usually I never knew any names of the Seventy, so I infered Apostleship. I've made a note in my copy to edit it, and I'll try to work in the other bits. Do you have references to the Oaks comments? If you don't have them handy, I'll google them.

Free thinker, thanks! I made this av at a website, and tried to make it look like me as much as possible. I don't really have that nice of a chair in my cubicle, though, but I do have a window! :D

Here's that website if you're interested. It's kind of fun:

http://illustmaker.abi-station.com/index_en.shtml#02

Luna

[miss taken]

Luna, I just read the above article. I thought it was better than the rebuttle one. It was thorough, well laid out, and pretty spot on in my opinion. Well done.
It is well worth a darn good read.

I would add that when I was a missionary, everything was felt to the extreme, and where the church acts like a cult in the more traditional and negative sense of the word.

This is when for some reason, you aren't supposed to read any, any newspapers, watch any TV, watch films (though we got to watch a movie on my mission which was Greeeeaaaat!), no contact with family other than by one letter once a week. Never be without a companion. I got threatened with being sent home when I decided that I had had enough and went to the local bus stop. (My companion was a salesperson, only interested in baptism, and would shout me down if I ever questioned anything...which I think at the time was a statement by Truman Madsen that suffering comes through wrong thought. I disagreed, and she just about went mad at me)

Actually I say to myself now. Why? Why can't missionaries keep up with current affairs? Why can't missionaries talk to their families (my friend didn't even go to her own father's funeral for pities sake)? Why can't they read ANY non-mormon book? Why do they have to get up at 5.30 in the morning? Why do they have to work 7 days a week? If ever I was a mindless morgbot, it was on my mission..

I have to add though that it wasn't all bad, just in case ya'll think I am being too negative. Lots of nice things happened.

Mary :)

[miss taken]

Just read your definitions link, I thought that that was excellent also.

Mary

[lunaverse]

Luna, I just read the above article. I thought it was better than the rebuttle one. It was thorough, well laid out, and pretty spot on in my opinion. Well done.
It is well worth a darn good read.

Thanks, I was worried :) It felt so pieced together.

I would add that when I was a missionary, everything was felt to the extreme, and where the church acts like a cult in the more traditional and negative sense of the word.

Yes, it's almost like the mission is a whole other Church. I never went on one, but someone has the mission compared to the BITE model at Hassan's website. It feels like there's a gaping hole in my knowledge because of it.

I guess a mission is part of the pyramid structure, where some members have a different experience than others. Like, in Scientology, the celebrity members like Tom Cruise are never forced to work long hours or any of the other icky things, so they are clueless as to the "dark side". Missionaries can check off nearly every point on cult checklists. :/

Most women, new adult converts, and the like will never really know about missions, unless they happen to go when they're older, and then they have more autonomy anyway... Reading about it can't replace the experience.

Luna