How to tell if you are (or were) in a cult.

We ran across this and when comparing it to our previous membership in the LDS church I think it is without a doubt a cult. The weird thing is that we were proud of it.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone

A kooky video about cults......

Monson won't testify

President Thomas S. Monson hasn't testified of the truthfulness of his church in his last 48 conference addresses. Kimber and I find that very interesting. I never even noticed this during the entire time I was a member. No doubt this info will cause people to listen closer to his talks from now on.

Check out the research. http://mormoncanon.com/articles/Monson-fails-to-testify

The recent fraud case against Monson and the church makes us think that Monson's refusal to testify is a legal safety net.

Corporate Church?

Hmmmm..... something seems fishy here.

Silly Mormons.

Why can't everyone think like us?

This video portrays how Kimber and I have been feeling lately. He is a bit vulgar but nails it right on the head.

David Fitzgerald on the Historical Christ

I recently watched a video that brought up a few interesting points on the origin of Christianity and the Bible. The information was presented by David Fitzgerald who received a degree in history at the California State University and has been studying the historicity of Jesus for the last 10 years or more. Some of his points are as follows:

1. No historians or authors that lived during the time of Jesus wrote about him or any of the many amazing things that should have been recorded if people were taking notes. It wasn't until about 100 yrs after that people started writing about his life. 
2. The people who are often stated to have been witness of Jesus all lived way after he had died. 
3. Quotes by Flavius Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews (93-94AD) that support the historicity of Jesus are generally accepted by the scholarly community as forgery.
4. There were more than 40 gospels written but only 4 made it into the Bible because they beleived the earth was flat and held up by 4 pillars. 

Interesting information that may require more investigation. 

Albert Einstein's View on Religion

When the majority of people think of someone that is absolutely brilliant I would dare say that they think of Alert Einstein. I recently stumbled on a few quotes that give us some degree of what he thought about God and Religion. It is interesting to note that today depending on the field of science, the majority considers themselves either agnostic or atheist. What does good old Albert have to say?

The following excerpts are taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.

From p. 39
On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

From p. 40
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Part of a letter to Eric Gutkin in 1954 (1 year before Einstein's death). 

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

 In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.  

With friendly thanks and best wishes  

Yours, A. Einstein.

I guess he falls into the same category as most scientists when it comes to concepts of god and religion.

Science vs Religion

I have heard many people say that they compartmentalize science and religion separately. I think that this is done because both are different ways that man uses to explain our surrounds and often times they conflict. Why should these two fields of thought be compartmentalized? Assuming that there is a God who controls this whole world like the majority of the world population thinks, the two should go hand in hand. Science should confirm the things of religion. When science and religion don't see eye to eye on certain things then it can only logically lead to one conclusion; at least one of them is wrong. Both of them could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So where do we put our trust? Many view God, the leader of their religion, as an all knowing, all powerful being that far surpasses our intellectual capability. This view, assuming their religion actually is led by god, has caused many to reject science concluding that man's finite mind cannot understand the things of God and therefore we should trust only our religion and be very skeptical of science when a conflict arises. Who is to say that God doesn't have his hand in science? Assuming that god is the source of all truth, he has his hand in anything that presents truth. So which can and should be more trusted? I believe science, and here are some reasons why.

First lets get some definitions as to what science and religion actually are:

Religion: An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality. -Wikipedia

Science:  A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. -Wikipedia

Reasons why science should be trusted over religion:

1. Science will admit that they are wrong Sitting a pharmacology class a few years ago the teacher emphasized that only about 50% of the things that he would be teaching us was true. He went on to point out that the problem was that he didn't know which 50% it was. Compare this to religion where people will stand up and say, "I know my message is true". Science is a process of hypothesis and tests. Hypothesis are basically logical guesses as to why something is the way it is. Hypothesis are always followed by tests that either confirm or reject them. Science isn't ever presented in a black and white view but rather as a probability to be further evaluated. Being unable to accept the fact that the way you see things is wrong creates a system that is extremely vulnerable to falsehoods. 
2. Science welcomes critical examination. Before a researcher's work can even be published in a credible journal it must be reviewed by multiple experts in the field. They ensure that the information that is presented is built upon principles that are supported by previous research and that if a concept isn't supported it is clearly stated to be an unsupported assumption. They present the exact method of how they performed their test, a discussion on how they interpreted their results and their conclusion. Once published this information is invited to be tested by other researchers and built upon. If the test included bias' or errors they are discussed publicly. Religion on the other hand completely discourages and avoids doubtful questioning. They focus only on information that supports their case and promotes faith. Not allowing critical examination and refusing to admit that they are wrong opens up religion to conformation biases which produce false information. 
3. Science is a worldwide effort not lead by one person or group. There isn't one person or organization that dictates what science should look into or accepts and rejects things. Science is a worldwide effort. Ideas are presented, evaluated, confirmed, repeated and build upon by completely separate organizations. Religion on the other hand is most often lead by one group or person. This person claiming to be closer to god that all others because they were chosen to be some sort of mouthpiece for god or enlightened. Allowing someone to be a leader and not critically questioning what is being said makes one extremely vulnerable to false information and abuse.
4. Science is testable. Science is a process that quantifies information. The process of science is used to investigate everything, including aspects of religion. My belief is that this world is controlled today by the same laws and powers that have existed since the beginning. Claims from long ago can, and should be, tested today. Religion is based on things that are not testable, not verifiable and stated as truth. Testing things of god is discouraged in many instances. Religion is based on happenings that were recorded long ago in limited detail from unknown sources at unknown times. Not being able to, or allowed to, test aspects of religion makes one vulnerable to accepting false information.

One can reject religion while not rejecting the concept of God. However, when it comes to learning about our universe (which in doing so should help us better learn about God) I believe that placing our trust in only religion puts people at great risk for rejecting or avoiding information provided by science that helps us better understand our surroundings. For those who continue to include religion in their life the balance can be difficult and I wish you the best.