A recent study was circulated that shows the psychological markers of “church abuse,” or an environment in a religious atmosphere that can lead to exploitation or abuse of individuals who join. In the study, participants rated their religion in light of the following 28 organizational behaviors, as either exerting a lot of pressure and control or very little pressure and control.
Because the study is administered to individual adherents (or former adherents), one problem with this type of study is that individuals seldom have experience with multiple religious groups. Additionally, individuals may experience their religious group as more extreme or less extreme than the norm based on their local congregation and leaders, their family members, and most importantly their own personalities, particularly with regard to their own confidence and abilities.
Additionally, many groups behave in these same ways without being extreme. We apply the pejorative “cult” and consider those who join extreme groups to be “gullible,” but all organizations use the same techniques to create cohesion and to recruit members, simply to a lesser extent. The difference between the army and al Qaeda may be ideological, but recruitment techniques differ in degree, not in kind. Likewise the difference between the Boy Scouts and a cult; both use rituals and attempt to create dependence. Both are attractive to those experiencing a time of transition.
An article in Psychology Today identifies 5 characteristics of extreme groups:
- A demand for members to isolate themselves from others not in the group. This also happens in monasteries which are not typically considered cults.
- Members are given arbitrary rules they must follow with exactness to ensure allegiance. This also happens in the army to break in new soldiers.
- Group members often have to do long hours of tedious work, rendering them physically and emotionally exhausted. This also happens in the Karate Kid. Wax on, wax off.
- Extreme groups nearly always engage members in filling the group’s coffers. While nearly all groups require some form of financial contribution, an extreme group may require a person to sign over all their assets or to engage in illegal activities or scams to quickly obtain funds.
- Groups bar the exits. While many groups makes it more difficult to leave than to join, extreme groups go to greater lengths to prevent, discourage or punish those who wish to depart from doing so. They may even sic Tom Cruise on you.
Understanding that groups and those who join them (all of us, people from all income levels, and all walks of life) share many characteristics should make us more understanding. Based on the article in Psychology Today, though, people often join groups, including extreme groups because of a few characteristics:
Recruiters know that what they appear to have in common is they are at some transitional phase in their life: something has gone and not been replaced. They may have moved location or given up work or education. They may have just left the bosom of the family because of age or poverty or divorce. They may have drifted away from their religion or ideological roots. They are dislodged from their social group…and looking for another.
And what does a group provide to such an individual?
Shy, unassertive people who seem inhibited and awkward in social situations are particularly attracted to groups with formulaic interaction patterns with their predictability and rule following.
and
Extreme groups offer simple, clear messages in an increasingly complex world.
So do political pundits. At least, popular ones do.
Back to the original survey.
- The group tells members how to conduct their sex lives. While nearly all religions have guidelines about sexual behaviors and chastity, cults and extreme groups often go much further. Charles Manson used to break in new family members by assigning them a sexual partner and activity; by directing them in such intimate matters, he quickly broke their independent free will.
- Women are directed to use their bodies for the purpose of recruiting or of manipulation. This just sounds like an episode of Mad Men.
- The group advocates or implies that breaking the law is okay if it serves the interests of the group. No wait, this one sounds like an episode of Mad Men. Or pre-recession investment firms.
- Members are expected to postpone or give up their personal, vocational, and educational goals in order to work for the group. While some disaffected Mormons would say missions do this, there’s a big difference between serving a mission and moving to Jonestown or handing out flowers at the airport.
- The group discourages ill members from getting medical assistance. Mormons tend to be big believers in professional medical care; priesthood blessings are seen as an add-on, not a substitute, for proper medical care.
- Gaining political power is a major goal of the group. This sounds more like early Mormonism, although for those who don’t share the church’s conservative majority opinion, it can feel like an oppressive environment.
- Members believe that to leave the group would be death or eternal damnation for themselves or their families. What religion doesn’t preach this? A small percentage (e.g. Universal Unitarianism), but most do preach this. When actual death threats accompany, then it’s an extreme group. Danites, anyone?
- The group discourages members from displaying negative emotions. Huh. Aside from AA, what groups encourage you to display negative emotions?
- Members feel they are part of a special elite. This just seems to me like all groups. The Singapore American Club did this. So do the Boy Scouts. So does Costco.
- The group teaches that persons who are critical of the group are in the power of evil, satanic forces. Again, that’s probably true of many religions.
- The group uses coercive persuasion and mind control. As defined by . . . ?
- The group approves of violence against outsiders. This is definitely extreme. Unfortunately, Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.
- Members are expected to live with other members. Thank goodness this isn’t a thing!
- Members must abide by the group’s guidelines regarding dating and intimate relationships. What does “must” mean? In most Christian churches there are youth guidelines, but no actual coercion. A group like the FLDS probably meets this standard.
- People who stay in the group do so because they are deceived and manipulated. Well, this applies to any group you later leave. You think it’s great until one day you don’t.
- The group teaches special exercises (e.g., meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues) to push doubts or negative thoughts out of consciousness. And yet, trying to overcome negative feelings is probably a good thing, right? I went to a leadership training that qualifies on this point.
- Medical attention is discouraged, even though there may be a medical problem. Isn’t this the same as #5?
- Members are expected to serve the group’s leaders. Certainly an expectation of undue deference to authority that goes against conscience is where the line is drawn, which is what makes the new policy so difficult for some of us. But actually serving the group’s leaders is not and can’t be required in such a large community.
- Raising money is a major goal of the group. Many groups are focused on making sure they are financially supported; the differentiator is probably in what the money is to be used for, particularly surpluses. The lack of financial transparency in most religions can create suspicion.
- The group does not hesitate to threaten outside critics. While all groups dislike criticism, actually threatening those outside critics is pretty extreme and difficult to pull off.
- Members are discouraged from making decisions without consulting the group’s leader(s). Given the size of most churches, few individuals would have direct access to leaders, one reason that small groups may be extreme, but at some point they become too large to function as cults.
- Members are less capable of independent critical thinking than they were before they joined the group. This is highly subjective. For example, soldiers may have an increased deference for orders and authority based on their training, but that’s how military groups work.
- The group believes or implies its leader is divine. This is done to prevent questioning orders given from above. While all Christian churches consider Jesus to be divine, how much the human leaders are given that divine authority by proxy is probably an indication of this one.
- Mind control is used without conscious consent of members. I’m not really sure what mind control really is, even after reading Helter Skelter. It looked just like following orders to me.
- Members feel significant psychological pressure from leaders. The amount of pressure people feel seems like something some are more susceptible to than others.
- The group’s leader(s) often criticize members. My son would say this happens at Chipotle where he works.
- Recruiting members is a major goal of the group. Most groups want to recruit new members. One could certainly say college football teams fit this description.
- Members are expected to consult with leaders about most decisions, including those concerning work, child rearing, whether or not to visit relatives, etc. This sounds like a repeat of #21.
In short, the article in Psychology Today made some great points about extreme groups–we are all susceptible to organizational pressures and tactics.
People who join extreme groups are not strange, disturbed, sheep-like idiots. We are social animals and members of many groups. The more secretive the group the more we are likely to label it a cult. . . . A lot of dark-side behaviour in organizations is group work. . . . People club together . . . they do things on behalf of groups that many seem strange and unacceptable primarily because they do not fully comprehend the value of group membership.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
#16 and #17 sound like yoga class.
No question the LDS church falls short of Jonestown! I think a better question is where do it’s practices fall on the War in Heaven scale. I’ve attended a wide range of Christian churches and the Catholic Church all of them place the LDS church closer to Scientology than they are. So LDS has the Godly mix of coercion to atonomy? Unlikely
Can certainly come across as isolationist & elite during teenage years in communities where the church is in the minority. Tug-of-war between sharing the gospel and avoiding the world. The latter tends to get over-emphasis in that age group IME.
On another point, one of last weeks online seminary lessons was disturbing. Numbers 12. The questions associated with the reading were shocking. A lot of the questions are leading questions anyway, but these were particularly bad, what with conflating leaders with prophets, and failing to recognise the leadership roles of Aaron & Miriam. It was heavily pushing the don’t criticise leaders thing. Both my kids were disturbed by the questions, likening it to a soviet state. A bit too heavy handed there CES!
Is Religion Inherently Authoritarian?
Some thoughts that jumped into my head when reading these points:
1. Didn’t the church have to retract its command that oral sex wasn’t acceptable even between a husband and wife because it was too invasive of a recommend question? I feel like I’ve heard something like that mentioned.
2. Flirt to convert? Anyone?
21/28. I feel like I often heard “you should consult with the bishop about that” and considering the wide range of “guidelines” that exist in Handbook 1 I think the church probably has a lot more to say about people’s decisions than it appears at first glance.
Overall I think its hard to sell the church as abusive or an extreme group in general. Obviously individual experiences may vary, but that’s true of pretty much everything in life!
Yeah, I don’t think the church qualifies as extreme on any real level, although it may have in its early days. Hard to say. No extreme group can maintain its fanatical crazy levels of devotion after a certain size of membership or geographical distribution.
But there can always be individuals within an organization that take it to that level (e.g. Opus Dei is more extreme than run-of-the-mill Catholicism).
“The group discourages ill members from getting medical assistance. Mormons tend to be big believers in professional medical care; priesthood blessings are seen as an add-on, not a substitute, for proper medical care.”
I was shocked to read that Brigham Young counseled members of the Mormon battalion to rely on priesthood blessings instead of worldly medicine (citation needed). Some LDS historians now say the doctor for the battalion (not a member) treated ailments with dangerous amounts of arsenic. I’m not sure if this is an example of inspiration or post hoc reasoning.
Other than that I have heard some anecdotes of members declining medicine in lieu of spiritual healing, but that is not attributable to the main stream church. For the most part, hawk is right; members treat priesthood blessings as an add-on.
With an relatively strong academic background in sociology, social-psychology, and organizational behavior, I most often try to couch my (frequent) criticisms of the institutional (Mormon) church (both the local and general manifestations) first as weaknesses of organizations/institutions, then as excesses due to our “divine” origins and connections (prophets, seers, and revelators–after all!).
It is heartening to read a post such as this that does a very good job of addressing the similarities and differences of the church to organizations/institutions in general.
Also RE: Howard, #4, “The result is that, in most cases, moral progress has left the churches behind.” I would like to offer a hearty amen! I often point out that ALL the social justice progress the one true church has made over the years has first come in society at large.
Mmm. I buy it, so for me it’s generally not too coercive, but my kids feel differently.
If you want to choose otherwise it then feels like it’s limiting your choices. Six am seminary can actually feel abusive if you don’t choose it for yourself. To be honest I sometimes wonder how we manage to keep any of our kids onside, maybe it’s a miracle.
Unfortunately it’s left me looking at it all with the eyes of an outsider, and it can then look pretty coercive. We work hard to show our kids that it’s motivated by love.
Thankfully, none of the 28 points describe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Looking through the list of what makes a group extreme, I think I would have answered that 10 of the 28 describe the LDS church. I don’t really know where that falls on my own spectrum since there is really no other organization that has ever played a large part in my life to compare this to.
Ji,
I don’t know how anyone could argue that # 27 doesn’t apply to the church.
Okay, here is the citation that wasn’t requested:
Lion of the Lord, by Susan Easton Black and Larry Porter, pg 158:
“Young instructed his officers by correspondence throughout the march; for example, he wrote, ‘if you are sick, live by faith, and let the surgeon’s medicine alone if you want to live, using only such herbs and mild foods as are at your disposal.’ In another letter, Young counseled, ‘Remember the ordinances in case of sickness.'”
This counsel is only meant to apply to the mormon battalion, and does not constitute abuse per se, but there is potential for someone to take it out of context and apply it more generally.
EBK (no. 12),
We share our message, and invite, that’s true, but we’re okay with people choosing not to join us. We respect the right of others to worship as they wish.
My answer is a slightly more cynical version of what ji said in #14. We talk “every member a missionary” but there are no consequences for missing your quota of new recruits in Mormonism. In a cult, there can be dire consequences.
There may not be consequences for missing a convert quota, but the social consequences for a young man in the Mormon corridor who doesn’t serve a mission are pretty severe. Specifically, many LDS young women will only consider return missionaries as marriage material.
“Specifically, many LDS young women will only consider return missionaries as marriage material.” True, although I wonder if the age change for both women & men is altering expectations. For one thing, it’s been reported that the same pressures exist now for women past mission age that have traditionally existed only for men. I tend to think that there will be a shift in pressure for both, an equalization in which pressure to go will be less than it has been.
“Recruiting members is a major goal of the group.”
That’s all #27 says. Considering it is part of the three fold (or four fold?) mission of the church I can’t imagine that anyone would say that recruitment is not a major goal. I never said we force people to join or punish people for not recruiting enough.
I do think there are some punishments for missionaries for not meeting recruitment goals. As a sister missionary, these tactics were never used on me, but there were many elders on my mission who were visited by the APs and forced into street contacting well past curfew in order to meet the zone quotas of lessons taught. My husband experienced the same thing on his mission.
I have the church guilty of 15 of the 28. At one point in the early history of the church the number would be even higher.
I’m about with Mike. I’d say 14 or 15 of the 28. I think that does put us about halfway between a cult and a religion. I also echo handlewithcare’s thoughts about it being amazing that any of our young people stay. Most YSAs don’t, in fact. In our stake, we have a 90% non-attendance rate of YSAs. That’s fairly typical church wide, I hear. I think if the church doesn’t change/adapt much faster than it has in the past, we’ll be in big trouble in another generation or two.
Thanks Hawkgrrrl another great and thought provoking post
I am not sure how we fit ( but unfortunately I felt uncomfortable as I read it) BUT these events happened in the last 2 weeks in my small circle.
A new Stake President ( an American from the ” centre Stake of Zion “) north of my city. At a women’s meeting ( it appeared to be a Stake RS leadership meeting) , this President took upon himself to speak about sexual intimacy in detail…. the do’s and don’t of sex including positions etc!! I thought this nonsense was left well alone in the 1980’s when I was asked and told there is only one sexual position…..by my Stake President ( I was 30 )
A member of my family made the fatal error of writing to her Bishop about the Church’s Policy of children in Same sex marriage …….she spoke after the letter was received by him and what was thought a very reasonable discussion with a difference of opinion respected ……then…..BUT NO the Bishop then wrote a number of emails demanding both husband and wife come and be interviewed by him. I have seen the emails and I think in “normal life” it would easily fit the term harassment, BUT NO the Bishop openly threatened both husband and wife ( husband had nothing to do in this letter )! that the family was apostate!!!!!! Then demanded their presence!!
Well, my long experience is that we do fit a number of the negative Characteristic listed above…..our broader family has had a number in major leadership positions but the ideas of a reasonable dialogue is not really an option in my experience in the Church. We have tendered to engage the gospel and not engage the ‘Church. That is what the Church has taught us….unfortunately?
I think the regular members of the church do not fit very many of the 28 characteristics. It may vary from ward to ward and in different families.
I think when we apply these charzcteristics to the full-time mission experience then we start to see more problems. It is voluntary service with a term limit and a positive experience for many. But too many of the 28 characteristics are also manifest.
I am going out on a limb for this last point. It seems to me that many potential investigators see our missionaries as “brainwashed” or over-zealous. They can identify or at least sense many of these 28 characteristics. The environment created for our missionaries has become counter-productive and one of the reasons why almost doubling the number of missionaries during the surge did not budge the baptisms very much. It also narrows the field of investigators who consider conversion.
J. Golden Kimball once said: We could sent half the d***d missionaries home and not have it affect the baptism rate. The trouble is we don’t know which half to send home. Perhaps it is time to send the missionary department home.