The Cult Controversy

2. UNIQUE GROUP ATTRIBUTES (CULTURE)

The culture of a group by definition will differ from society at large and therefore it is only modestly useful in determining whether a group is a cult. The most that can be done when examining a group's culture is to say that the probability increases that a group will be labeled a cult the more extreme and on the fringe the group's culture.

With many cults, the culture of the group will tend toward the fringe and extremes in such ready indicators as dress, grooming, behaviors and practices.  When this is the case, the cult usually takes pride in standing out of the mainstream and often looks upon their difference as hallmarks of their elitism and separateness. But there are some cults whose culture may fit well into the mainstream of society at large. 

Although, Jehovah's Witnesses do have a unique culture, many topics of which can be explored under the Menu Bar above, for the most part, Jehovah's Witnesses culture would not be considered to be on the fringe of society.  Jehovah's Witnesses are a group made up of families and individuals who live within the context of their own larger culture. Thus they are not much different than other conservative Christians in terms of dress, grooming, etc. and for this reason most people do not identify them as cultic based upon their unique group attributes.
In general, the Jehovah's Witness culture conforms to the ethical standards of the Judeo-Christian tradition and to the legal norms of Western culture. Compare Map of Conformity.


3. SOCIAL & PEER PRESSURE

Many so-called cult experts and even some sociologists use the term "high-pressure group" instead of "cult" because cults are often an environment which is only possible due to the extreme amount of social and peer pressure involved in maintaining the group. By reading accounts of such cults, one can easily see what is meant by the term.  It is true that every group places some degree of social and peer pressure upon individuals to conform to the group's or society's standards and conventions; but in cults the degree of pressure is intense and unrelenting.

Among Jehovah's Witnesses there is a normal (in comparison to any other religious group) amount of social and peer pressure to conform to the expected standards and way of doing things.  True, individuality and independent thinking are devalued and to some extent repressed.  However, an objective evaluation of this leads one to conclude that the level of this pressure is not experienced to the degree that one sees among cults.

Among cults social and peer pressure is generally overt and often intertwined with punishment from the leadership or the leader's minions. Among Jehovah's Witnesses the social and peer pressure is extremely subtle and is never intertwined with punishment, though it may be intertwined with non-rewards, or withdrawal of association or friendship.  In a cult the one rejecting the pressure to conform with the leader's wishes might be cursed at, egged on by the other members, or even physically molested (e.g. spat upon, beaten, even tortured).  Among Jehovah's Witnesses the individual rejecting the social pressure to conform, say to the standards of grooming might simply be avoided or at most given "dirty looks" or receive some "counsel" from the elders regarding their nonconformity. They might further be denied "privileges" but, except for extreme violations of prohibited conduct (gross sins), it is unlikely that the Witness would be formally censured, reproved or disfellowshipped.

A related concept to social and peer pressure is the popularized notion of "love-bombing" that occurs among some cults. Some have suggested that this occurs among Jehovah's Witnesses. This is how Singer describes the concept:

        "Most cults have specific plans for drawing in each recruit. As soon as any interest is shown by the recruits, they may be love bombed by the recruiter or other cult members. This process of feigning friendship and interest in the recruit was initially associated with one of the early youth cults, but soon it was taken up by a number of groups as part of their program for luring people in. Love bombing is a coordinated effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members' flooding recruits and new members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual touching, and lots of attention to their every remark.  Love bombing - or the offer of instant companionship - is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives." (Cults in our Midst, p. 114)

The attention that Jehovah's Witnesses show new visitors to the Kingdom Hall or to new bible studies does not resemble in the least the deceptive love bombing tactic used by cults. It is true that new visitors are usually greeted warmly and several persons may approach these ones to make them feel welcome which can be a bit overwhelming for the shy or introverted person; but there isn't a hidden agenda or anything resembling the conduct described by Dr. Singer.

In fact, in contrast to the love bombing tactic, new ones are viewed and treated with some caution until they have become well established and proven in their faith and character. Thus the allegation of love bombing is a baseless attack made by persons that wish to bolster their claim that the religion and Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult.  It is totally without merit.

Similarly, while social approval is entirely conditional and there is no such thing as "unconditional love" among Jehovah's Witnesses, this is not what is meant by sociologists and cult-experts when they refer to social pressure within high-pressure groups.

4. THE THOUGHT-REFORM PROGRAM (Can you eat off the menu?)

Every group has some program of education and indoctrination even though it may be informal.*  The presence of such a program is not itself an indication of anything sinister or harmful. However, within the analysis of whether a group is a cult or not, the existence of a thought-reform program or activities relating to thought-reform are the essential distinction between a cult and a non-cult. It is the thought-reform program which ultimately leads to harm.

Singer calls this program a "coordinated program of pursuasion" and it provides the guiding pattern for indoctrinating the new cult member and more importantly, for ultimately convincing the new member to fully embrace the ideals, behaviors, and goals of the cult. Singer says such programs "tend to be totalistic, or all-encompassing, in controlling their members' behavior and also ideologically totalistic, exhibiting zealotry and extremism in their worldview." They also tend to "require members to undergo a major disruption or change in life-style."

Other names for this program are:

• Thought struggle (ssu-hsiang tou-cheng), Mao Tse-tung (1929)
• Brainwashing (hse nao), Hunter (1951)
• Thought-reform (ssuhsiang kai-tsao), Lifton (1956)
• Debility, dependency, and dread (DDD syndrome), Farber, Harlow, and West (1957)
• Coercive persuasion, Schein (1961)
• Mind Control, Unknown (ca. 1980) (favored by Steve Hassan)
• Systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence, Singer (1982)
• Coordinated programs of coercive influence and behavioral control, Ofshe and Singer (1986)
• Exploitative persuasion, Singer and Addis (1992)

The term "brainwashing" seems to be the most prevalent in non-academic discussion. For a more in depth review of brainwashing consider this page.

The general rule of thumb which I have developed is to state that the probability that the group is a cult seems to correlate inversely to the degree to which the members are permitted to deviate from the prescribed program.  Thus, the more deviation is accepted the less likely that the group is a cult and vice versa.  In other words, the fundamental question to ask is: Can the member eat off the menu or do they have to swallow only what is provided to them?

This aspect is troubling to consider for Jehovah's Witnesses because the culture includes the teaching that the only "good spiritual food" comes from the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (i.e. the leadership) and that all other forms and sources are suspect if not outright originating from Satan. However, Singer and others mean more than this when they refer to the thought-reform program.

The "program" that they speak of is much more encompassing than the mere teaching that only the leadership is correct or the source of true knowledge. (After all many well-respected religions hold some variation of the teaching that they are the true religion or the true source of divine knowledge.)  No, more than just a mere teaching or belief such as the Witnesses' Faithful and Discreet Slave Doctrine is involved.  Rather the whole program and the whole social environment of the group is designed to breakdown individual judgment and free-will and result in an ultimate surrendering of individual choice to the group or to the leadership. [However, note that an alternative theory regarding cult recruitment and participation rejects any form of involuntarianism and posits that person's join cults as a result of free will.]

While Jehovah's Witnesses do have a more or less rigid educational program and their entire culture is designed to promote and enhance conformity, individuals are technically free to "eat off the menu" if they so choose. This is highly discouraged and not with the blessing of the leadership and in some rare cases if a member were found to be either attending religious services of another church or reading other religious materials, the member could be disciplined or punished. It should be noted that individual choice and free-will is a constant feature within the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses but such individual freedom while existing is highly pressured to conform with the standard by the belief system itself and socially. One of the reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are not a cult is due to the fact that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses involves a series of personal choices including the choice to pursue baptism and the choice afterwards to maintain active membership.  While again this is technically true, there is concern about the larger picture and the social pressure along with the beliefs and doctrines which direct that alternative approaches to the Christian faith are not acceptable.

Becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is certainly a free and individual choice and many of the tactics used in cults are not present in the indoctrination process of a Witness.  There is a prescribed course of study, however, it should be noted that there is actually quite a bit of flexibility.  The only requirements are to undergo the "final questions" and interviews prior to baptism and to be, as far as it is known, living within the expected moral parameters of a Christian Jehovah's Witness. Otherwise there are alternative paths to becoming a Witness.

It is true that there are some fundamental requirements to be considered a member in good standing and to be considered worthy of association including participating in the ministry and maintaining standards of conduct and morality and being officially approved for association (i.e. not being disfellowshipped, disassociated or deemed apostate), but these are aspects of the minimum membership requirements and not what is meant by the ability to "deviate from the program."

In a cult, if a member does not embrace the program, he or she is unlikely to become a member in the first place or remain associated with the cult very long.  Among Jehovah's Witnesses, however, there are thousands, and perhaps millions, that privately do not accept all of the teachings of the leadership or which have private reservations about certain beliefs, practices and other aspects of the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses.  These persons remain active members of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Another related aspect of "thought-reform" process or coordinated program of pursuasion is the element of time-commitment.  In cults, it is often the case that the program, or cult-activities will occupy virtually all of the time of the individual thus leaving no time for any non-cult related activities and certainly no time for the individual to explore alternatives, uncover irrationalities or inconsistencies, or spend time with non-cult members (who may talk some sense into them).

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the issue of time-commitment as evidence just along these lines of reasoning and argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult because of the incredible amount of expected time commitment.  However, such persons ignore the very real fact that almost none of Jehovah's Witnesses actually engage in the expected time-commitment. The Society's own published statistics indicates that more than half of Jehovah's Witnesses engage in less than 10 hours a month in field service.  No formal surveys or statistical evaluations have ever been performed, but it is unlikely that more than a very tiny fraction of Witnesses ever do all that they are "encouraged" to do including fully preparing for meetings, doing personal study and bible-reading, having family studies, in addition to the actual meeting attendance and field-service participation and conducting an actual "bible-study" - the goal held before every Witness.  True,  if one were to actually engage in all of these idealized activities then the time-commitment would be tremendous.  But even so, it cannot be overlooked that such a schedule would still allow for a full-time job and leave time for some "personal" non-religious related activities. Thus, the fact is that neither the time commitment expected of Jehovah's Witnesses, nor (much less) the actual time commitment given by most Jehovah's Witnesses rises to the level of commitment that is seen within cults which tend to truly become all-life encompassing.

As a related issue, Steven Hassan, points out in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control that cults generally reject from membership persons with ill-health, or who have mental disabilities or physical disabilities and the like because these persons are not able to maintain the expected time commitment.  In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses freely admit and embrace such persons which is another indicator that there is no hidden agenda unlike in a cult.

* The term "deprogramming" (indicating the need to reverse or erase the "programming" of a thought-control program) was the name given by Ted Patrick in the early 1970s to his practice that consisted in kidnapping members of religious cults and subjecting them to a constant barrage of "arguments" until they recanted their views. Aside from the illegalities involved, the technique has been brought under disrepute and is largely condemned by most concerned about dealing with former-cult members.

5. DISSENT WITH LEADERSHIP & LEADERSHIP/FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIP

Being authoritarian in nature does not make a group a cult but it is almost always the case that a cult will be authoritarian in nature.  Next to harm that results from being in a cult and restrictions upon leaving the cult, the lack of the ability to dissent, challenge, criticize or change the leadership of a group without punishment is most commonly highlighted as a cultic quality.

Another typical characteristic of a cult is the relationship between members and the leadership and the role of the leadership. The following describes what can usually be seen in a cult:

• Cult leaders are self-appointed and often claim to have a special mission in life or to have special knowledge
• Cult leaders tend to be determined and domineering and are often described as charismatic, persuasive persons
• Cult leaders center veneration on themselves
• Cults appear to be innovative and exclusive
• Cults tend to have a double set of ethics

To some extent the Society possesses this cultic attribute and the claim of divine authority by the Faithful and Discreet Slave doctrine - which asserts that it is the only channel of divine communication between God and mankind on earth today - is especially troubling.  So long as this teaching continues and the notion that the Governing Body are especially selected for the privilege of leading all true Christians, and it is implied or directly stated that they are divinely directed, these things will remain dangerously cultic and a source of legitimate criticism.

However to be fair, it should be noted that, at least recently, the Society hasn't made any claims of infallibility and that its general assertion of being divinely directed is, these days, more akin to similar claims in other well-established religions such as Catholicism and Islam. Cult leaders by comparison go well beyond general claims of having divine approval or direction and often make direct claims of divine inspiration, divine incarnation and the like.

Similarly, it would probably be accurate to describe the first two presidents of the (incorporated) Society, Charles Taze Russell (attributed to be the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) and Joseph F. Rutherford as charismatic personalities who wielded virtually autonomous power within the Organization.  But today's Jehovah's Witnesses have largely shed the "veneration" of its founders and more and more the unquestioning attitude towards its leadership is eroding.  With respect to this too the same could be said regarding Martin Luther, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and even many others. Almost every established religion has at its origins one or more exceptional personalities in leadership roles. The difference between these and cults is obvious.

Little more needs be said regarding the leadership in cults as most everyone understands what a cult is like as far as the role and treatment of leadership. It is a basic assumption that in a cult the leadership does not tolerate dissent and also often seeks to squash all forms of criticism. It is therefore useful to identify some common ways that cults intimidate and harass critics.  These include the following:

• Intimidating Scholars
• Harassing Journalists, Reporters, and Writers
• Manipulating the Public Image of the Cult
• Restricting and Controlling Research
• Persecuting Therapists and Lawyers
• Threatening or Instigating Legal Suits
• Forcing Relatives and Friends into Silence
• Extraordinary Harassment
• Punishing/Silencing any Criticism by its Members (Rejection of any democratic activity)

What needs to be noted is that these ways are to be distinguished from the mere attempt to control the group's image through public relations or to protect the intellectual property rights (copyright and trademark) of the group via legal means. This type of activity to silence internal and external critics is in the extreme and not in the pursuit of legitimate complaint or concern.

The problem for Jehovah's Witnesses is that while the Organization has not gone to the extreme in this regard and does not routinely intimidate and harass outside critics, the fact is that no internal dissent or criticism is tolerated.*  This raises the spectre that the Organization does indeed possess this cultic attribute and it is one of lingering concern. In the early days of the Organization under C.T. Russell, there existed some democratic aspects, but today's Organization is a self-proclaimed "Theocracy" or "Theocratic Organization" and as such it resembles a strict hierarchical authoritarian system without any true democratic aspects or processes.

Until the day when open debate and discussion is accepted and when active members may freely and openly dissent with the leadership, including the teachings, practices and other aspects of the current culture, without fear of punishment or actual reprisals, then the Organization will leave itself open to the charge of possessing this cultic attribute.

*One recent troubling development is the lawsuit initiated against Peter Mossier, operator of the Quotes website (http://quotes.watchtower.ca/) on the pretext of protecting the Society's copyright. While Mossier's site did apparently violate copyright and failed to execute within the bounds of Canada's Fair Comment provisions (similar to the Fair Use exception in U.S. law), it is the tactic which is chilling. Compare this to the well known strategy and success of the Church of Scientology and the Bruderhof in silencing critics via means of lawsuits based on claims of copyright infringement or other grounds.

6. ALTERNATIVE PATHS TO SUCCESS

What this cultic quality is meant to address is a rigidity within the "program" and the existence of a very specific path to higher achievement that often results in the transitioning of the novice up to a higher-position within the group. By "success" I mean both the attainment to positions of leadership within the group and to social stature within the group as well as to higher enlightenment or access to greater secrets or knowledge claimed to be held by the leadership. 

In cults, there is often limited paths to such success.  Only by following the prescribed pattern, perhaps by going through a series of very defined steps and meeting a series of rigid qualifications, can a cult member reach "higher" levels, sometimes referred to as "advanced degrees" or deeper/higher planes. Conversely, in non-cult groups there are often many alternative paths to success.  Both leadership positions and the higher or deeper "knowledge" can be obtained in a number of ways, often through merit, study and effort.

Among Jehovah's Witnesses there is not anything like one may see in a cult when it comes to access to "knowledge" or steps up the ladder.  At most is the cultural aspect that by following the prescribed activities and the unspoken and emulated pattern of behavior, one may possibly "rise" within the Organization, even if no further than the congregational level through promotion and by pleasing the local Elders and above.  This situation though is not the same as one would see in cults.

7. FULL DISCLOSURE & INFORMED CONSENT

As a lawyer this is one of my favorite aspects to consider. For Singer, full disclosure, or rather the lack of it, and the presence of a hidden agenda is a key facet of a real cult. Singer calls the lack of full disclosure a form of deception.

This is how she puts it: "Whether it includes blatant deception at the point of recruitment or a lot of little deceptions along the way, the double agenda clearly differentiates cults from other groups who attract members, such as legitimate schools and institutionalized religions, the military, and a variety of volunteer organizations. Cults know that if you knew from the get go what you were in for and why, you would never join. It's as simple as that." (Cults in our Midst p.124)

For the most part, Jehovah's Witnesses as an Organization are on safe ground when considering this aspect. However, there are a few concerns regarding full disclosure to both new and current members that bear mentioning.

First and foremost is the dearth in acknowledgement or reference to the Organization's own past history, particularly with regard to failed prophecy and predictions. The fact is that when some Jehovah's Witnesses have actually delved into the Organization's past they have been shocked at what they have found.  In some cases, the Organization has suffered from selective memory and in a few serious instances, most notably the teaching regarding 1914, it has actually engaged in revisionist history. (These and other such considerations are too numerous to consider on this page but are discussed elsewhere on this site.) Built within the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses is the tendency to ignore the Organization's (religion's) own past history and especially to white-wash any past failings, including statements of prophecy that have been made by the leadership which were never fullfilled even though stated with certainty. This is of course both morally and intellectually wrong. The problem is that when one really ponders over these past failings it calls into serious question the claim of divine authority and the fundamental premise of the Society that there is a "faithful and discreet slave that is providing good spiritual food at the proper time." New ones and even current members are never fully informed about the Society's history and so the question is raised as to how many would join or remain if they new all of the facts.

Second, the issue of full disclosure has arisen in such serious circumstances of having "double-standards" or failing to fully inform the Worldwide Association of important lapses in judgment by the leadership. (The UN Controversy, Malawi v. Mexico, The Bulgarian Blood issue and other such instances come to mind.  See Schisms, Scandals, Conflicts & Controversies for more info about these.)

Third, there is the issue of possessing a double-set of ethics.  As Singer correctly points out, many cults have a double-standard of ethics - one for the outside world and one for the cult-members.  What comes to mind as a Witness is something which has always bothered me and that is the very basic premise that worldly persons should be free to question and examine their religion and what they have been taught.  It is said that they should even challenge the leadership of their churches and examine whether what they are learning is the truth. Yet, we Witnesses are told that "since we know we have the truth" then it is wrong for us to do the same thing!?

Finally, another troubling aspect involving full disclosure is whether new members, especially those who are not raised Jehovah's Witnesses, are really given an in depth understanding of what potential excommunication (either due to disfellowshipping or due to disassociation) may mean for them.  I find it very troubling that such ones are encouraged to stop associating with all of their non-Witness friends as they gradually adopt more and more of the Witness culture and are told to make new friendships with fellow Jehovah's Witnesses but that they are virtually unprepared to face a time when they may be no longer approved association.  In such a circumstance they may be left with virtually no social network or support to cope with their situation.

In my experience, during the bible study with such new ones, very little is ever said about disfellowshipping and disassociation or the other areas mentioned above and this brings into question whether newly baptized Witnesses are making their decision to become a baptized member under full disclosure of all the relevant factors and with what could really be said to be "informed consent."

Despite these valid concerns, becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is not a spur of the moment thing or a product of ecstatic recruitment. When being recruited by a cult, if you ask about the details of what will be required for you to do as a member, you will not be told the truth. In fact you will probably be lied to.  Certainly a lot of the most surprising facets of group life will not be told to you until you are well on your way to being indoctrinated or actually a member.

Jehovah's Witnesses are entirely different. If you were a new Bible Study or even just someone that has been approached for the first time, if you asked the Witness to fully describe what would be required of you, you will be told.  You might be astounded to learn of the expectations regarding meeting attendance, the ministry, and life-style but these will be disclosed. Unlike a cult, one who does become a Witness understands what they are joining, understands the purpose and activities of the group and makes an informed choice. Unlike in a cult there is not a hidden agenda among Jehovah's Witnesses although the areas discussed above raise some concerns that Jehovah's Witnesses should be doing more to make an even fuller disclosurer of all the facts, requirements, and especially the consequences of joining.

8. PUNISHMENT &  REWARDS

In a cult the punishment and rewards are tied very closely to the coordinated program of pursuasion. In cults, these tend to be very extreme, especially the punishment of members. In cults punishment may include deprivation, abuse, torture, beatings and even death.  Rewards may include monetary gifts, sex, status, and other tangible privileges.

See this page for a discussion of how Jehovah's Witnesses approach Punishment & Rewards. In short, the punishment and rewards among Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing like one sees among cults even though to an extent such things are intended to promote compliance and conformity.

9. SECRECY

Many cults are secretive in nature.  Some are secret-societies where even membership is closely guarded. Some cults maintain secrecy regarding their internal practices and beliefs.  Other cults claim to have secret knowledge which is only revealed to the elite or to those members that eventually obtain a certain level of success.  And some cults keep their very activities secret by physical isolation. Of course, non-cultic groups including corporations and religions have secrets also, so merely having some secrecy or privacy is not evidence of a cultic nature.  Secrecy is only a minor factor to consider but in some instances it can be a telling one.

For the most part, the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is open and not secretive.  True, there are some materials such as the Flock Book which are not for general circulation.  And there are many situations such as Judicial Committees and the Governing Body meetings where there is secrecy and these are not open to the public. And finally, the Organization keeps a pretty tight-lid on its finances, it corporate holdings and other such things.  But none of these things rises to the level of being cultic or is even that much different than any large corporation.

10. MESSING WITH MIND AND BODY

Another potential aspect to examine is the impact upon physical health and nutrition. This is in essence an extension of the "harm analysis" outlined as the first point. As Singer points out many cults use various physiological and psychological techniques to ensure compliance with the program.  Some cults purposely stress their members, place them in unhealthy states or keep them nutritionally deprived. The following are some common techniques used by cults:

Physiological Techniques:

• Hyperventilation
• Repetitive Motion
• Chanting, repetitive singing or intoning, saying a Mantra
• Change in Diet, Sleep, Rest
• Body Manipulations
• Relaxation-Induced Anxiety

Psychological Techniques:

• Trance and Hypnosis
• Deep Meditation ("with an emptying of the mind"), Zen or Zazen meditation
• Guided Imagery
• Indirect Directives
• Trickery
• Revision of Personal History
• Peer Pressure and Modeling
• Emotional Manipulation/Constricted Emotion
• Discombobulation (communicating in a deliberately confusing way)

It goes without stating that none of these techniques are used by Jehovah's Witnesses to perpetuate a thought-control program and many of them are positively rejected as being of Satanic origin and potentially dangerous for a Christian to engage in.  If anything, a Witness found to be engaging in some of the above things is likely to be counseled or possibly disciplined.

The Society advocates a healthy balance in living, in diet, sleep, rest, etc. and none of the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses are detrimental in these areas. Members too are free to control their own nutrition, health and lifestyle.*
*The blood issue again is a matter of doctrinal error not part of a systematic form or control.  See also the section above regarding peer pressure for notes on that.

11. QUANTITATIVE FACTOR

Although most sociologists and others do not make a quantitative assessment  when evaluating the cultic quality of a group, I believe it to be a valid factor to consider. I think that most people intuitively feel and believe that cults are small in terms of membership. And if we reason that part of the growth of a group entails the attraction of others to join, then we can understand that there is some correlation to the "cultic" nature of the group and growth because those groups which are at the fringe of society will never appeal to the masses due to their extreme worldviews, beliefs, practices and culture.  Thus the growth of a group is in a way a practical gauge of how cultic the group may be, though it is only a weak indicator.

There are no bright-lines that would indicate when a group's size grows from cult to an established religion or something else but it would seem that the number should be significant.  I would thus propose the following quantitative measurements for ascertaining whether a group was cultic (assuming some of the other factors discussed here are also applicable of course):

• Less than 1000 members = Highly likely to be a cult (or else it is a new non-cultic group in infancy)
• 1000 to 10,000 members = Likely a cult, with many radical or cultic qualities intrinsic to its nature
• 10K to 100K members = Possibly a cult, with a few cultic qualities intrinsic to its nature
• 100K to 500K = Possibly still a cult, may have some cultic qualities tangential to its nature
• 500K to 1.5 Million members = probability of being a cult decreases the closer to 1.5 Million, may have cultic qualities tangential to its nature  (Note: this is probably the "transition zone" with 1 Million being the most likely median pt of transition++)
• 1.5 Million to 8 Million members = Probably not a cult but may have some residual cultic qualities
• 8+ Million or more members  = Definitely not a cult, any cultic qualities are aberrations

Jehovah's Witnesses, with over 6 Million members (active baptized publishers), fits well with what I believe to be an accurate assessment of its present state. That is to say that the Organization/religion is not a cult but possesses some residual cultic qualities left over from the past and based upon obsolete cultural artifacts, beliefs and practices.* 

For your information, the Jehovah's Witness Organization which had its start at the turn of the 19th Century crossed the 100K mark in 1941, the 500K mark in 1953, and the 1 million mark in 1964 and has grown significantly in the last 40 years. However, over the past decade, the growth has leveled considerably but still remains positive worldwide.

Of interest also is where some other groups would fall on my scale above: Eckankar (50K), Christian Science (150K to 300K), Worldwide Church of God (founded by H. Armstrong) (750K at its peak, now dwindled considerably, probably less than 500K today), Scientologists (500K to 750K), Mormons/LDS (12 Million), and Seventh-Day Adventists (14 Million).  See this page for information about other groups including size data: The Religious Movements Page

*I am using the Society's own approved method of counting only active baptized publishers as real Jehovah's Witnesses.  Others including Adherents.com puts the number over 15 million persons which would be more reflective of all persons that attend the Memorial or who are in association with Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course we must remember that all religious groups began with small numbers.  All of the worlds major religions, denominations and sects were at one time made up of a small number of adherents. Even Christianity was initially a cult, some called it a "sect of Judaism" and others a "cult of Jesus." The test is what groups remain small in numbers and what groups grow to encompass a large number of members.
++ One million people is a lot of people. Of the world's 201 sovereign countries, 48 of them (25%) have less than one million residents.

12. OTHODOXY - THEOLOGY

Members of the Counter-Cult Movement and some others use Orthodoxy as a basis to say whether a group is a cult.* This theological slant is most evident in Christian evangelical literature. I don't believe that orthodoxy or non-orthodoxy is a valid factor to consider for a number of reasons including the fact that to presuppose orthodoxy means simply to acknowledge that there were "winners" in the development of Christianity and to ignore the fact that there were "losers" such as Christian Gnostics and other variations of Christianity that were in competition during the first several centuries of the Church or which exist now within the body of Christian faith. While this conventional theological analysis has appealing features, including that it is simple, direct and intelligible, it has too many flaws to be truly useful. The first flaw is the question of orthodoxy I have just mentioned. Second, this factor fails to acknowledge the variety of beliefs and practices among the innumerable groups labeled as a cult. Third, calling a group a cult because it is unorthodox helps only to merely identify them based upon this definition it does not help us to understand them. Fourth, such a narrow view does not address satisfactorily questions regarding religious pluralism. Nevertheless, despite these inherent flaws, let's briefly examine the major areas which most Christians would insist that another christian religion possess in order for it not to be labeled a cult.  These areas are Baptism, the Eucharist, the Trinity and some version of the Ransom/Redemption/Atonement doctrine.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe and practice baptism. They believe that complete immersion is appropriate and that baptism is a "public declaration of one's dedication and trust in Christ's ransom sacrifice" as well as a declaration of repentance from sins. One could hardly criticize Witnesses in this area.

Jehovah's Witnesses practice a limited form of the Eucharist, having about 8,000 of the elite (the anointed) partake of the bread and wine, once a year, during the Memorial of Christ's Death.  While some Christians may criticize this practice and assert that partaking in the Eucharist is meant for all Christians, this is a disagreement over doctrine and belief and not reason to call Witnesses a cult.

Jehovah's Witnesses reject the Trinity part and parcel.  If some wish to call them a cult on this basis, they are just exhibiting their strong bias and belief in the Trinity doctrine, which Jehovah's Witnesses and some others dispute.  There is not much to be said about it.

Finally, Witnesses do of course, believe in the Ransom and the Redemption made possible by the death of Jesus.

Thus taking everything above, it is clear to see, that with the one exception, Jehovah's Witnesses are within the realm of accepted Christianity and in fact when one looks at the various lists of world religions they are included in the segment encompassing Christianity. Again, Christian orthodoxy should not be a basis in determining whether a group is a cult but even if one did make such an examination they would have to give Jehovah's Witnesses the benefit of the doubt unless they were using extremely narrow filters of what would be considered orthodox.

* By "orthodoxy" I mean Christian orthodoxy or traditional belief and teachings and not merely a comparison between what is mainstream and what is fringe. Otherwise, almost all cults are outside of the mainstream in many areas and so an examinatoin as to whether they were orthodox or not would be meaningless.

13. BARRIERS TO EXITING

Another factor to examine is whether there are any barriers to leaving the group. The barriers can be physical, psychological, emotional or practical.  In a nutshell, the more barriers to exiting the group, the greater the likelihood that it is a cult.

Some cults create physical barriers to exiting by dwelling in walled compounds, remaining in small isolated communities, moving to remote locations (like Jim Jones' People's Temple) or even using physical constraints like locked rooms, chains, restraints, beatings, threats, etc. upon members who wish to leave.

Others create psychological and emotional barriers to exiting.  Singer addresses some of these in her "Five D's" of why it is hard to leave a cult. These are:

• Deception, in the recruitment process and throughout the membership
• Debilitation, because of the commitment required, the psychological pressures, and the inner constriction and strife
• Dependency, as a result of being cut off from the outside world
• Dread, because of beliefs instilled by the cult that a person who leaves will find no real life on the outside
• Desensitization, so that things that would once have troubled them no longer do

Other factors that may make it hard for persons to leave a cult are:

• Belief - this area is a powerful restraint not easily understood by others who don't share the experience
• Decency and Loyalty - most people feel a sense of loyalty toward their friends & family and leaving may make them feel like they are violating this
• Authority Figures - these can be a powerful obstacle to leaving, especially if they are well-respected or seem to be genuine or have created an aura of divine guidance or position
• Peer Pressure and Lack of Information - these obvious factors can be overlooked by those already in the know
• Exhaustion and Confusion - these factors are really prevalent in those cultic groups which deliberately manipulate mind and body
• Separation from the Past - change is almost always difficult and leaving the past behind isn't easy
• Fear - the unknown is very scary and uncertainty about one's future may make it difficult to change the status quo
• Guilt over Participation - A few persons may feel embarrassed or guilty at being so foolish or in their being a part of a cult. They may have anxieties about being judged by others if they should leave the group.
• Practical Concerns - Everyone needs food, shelter, clothing and to earn a living or to be taken care of. When a cult has made the member dependent upon it for existence, leaving can be a real problem.

Turning to Jehovah's Witnesses, for the most part there are few if any barriers to exiting. Certainly there are no major physical barriers to exiting and nominally, it is as easy to leave as either ceasing to associate with the Witnesses, or perhaps, giving a notice of disassociation to the local congregation.*

However, the reality is not as simple as this. Due principally to the practices of Disfellowshipping and Disassociation, there are psychological, emotional and even some practical difficulties that arise for the member who opts to leave.  While it is true that these are not exactly "barriers to exiting" the consequences of voluntary disassociation cannot be ignored. The additional insularity of the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses is also relevant and may create dependency upon family and friends who have remained Witnesses making it difficult to gain independence for those who wish to leave or to provide a social network and support group for those leaving.

On the whole, while it may be true that there are not any real barriers to leaving like one may find in a cult, there is some cause for concern since it is not currently possible for a baptized Witness to walk away from the Organization with friends and family and reputation intact. Until these policies and practices have changed, this may provide a legitimate source of criticism of the Organization.

*Minors living at home might encounter some problems but these are situational and impossible to address here.

14. STEVE'S BITE

Steve Hassan is a well-known former cult member turned anti-cult proponent and is considered to be a "cult expert." He has appeared in numerous settings and has successfully counseled and advised many persons both in exit-counseling and in lectures on cults and mind controlling groups.  In 1988, he authored the book Combating Cult Mind Control in which he discussed his "BITE" methodology for describing and identifying cults. The BITE methodology has been frequently cited by those who have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult as they have attempted to fit Jehovah's Witnesses culture and theology into the model. (More recently Hassan has improved upon his exit-counseling methods via a new approach which he terms the "Strategic Interaction Approach" or SIA as described in his book Releasing the Bonds.)*

The acronym BITE stands for:

• B ehavior Control
• I nformation Control
• T hought Control
• E motional Control

Hassan asserts that these areas of control are facets of cults. Actually, they are so broadly defined that they could be applied to many non-cultic groups and organizations but the examples and applications he provides makes it quite clear how they operate in a cult. Hassan's methodology is actually just an extension of the components of psychologist Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Hassan's four components, which he details in pages 59-67 of his book, are sketched below:

Behavior control involves regulation of every part of the life of the target person, from what they wear and eat to what they do each moment of the day. This is typically coerced by repeated punishment of self-willed actions, plus reward of actions that follow given rules.

Information control seeks to limit the access to information by the member.  Information is to be strictly controlled, such that all information supports the group, its beliefs and that which directs the person's action. Outside information is blocked to avoid disconfirming evidence. Information within the group is based on "need to know" and seniority rules, thus ensuring individuals do not get hold of inappropriate information (whilst also helping to increase the status and desirability of higher positions within the organization). Information made available is massaged to provide "proof" of group ideals. Individuals are encouraged to report on one another and also on their own innermost thoughts and confess "sins".

Thought control involves the implicit assumption that the ideas and ideals of the group are correct and unchallengeable. Anything else is framed as a polar opposite and hence to be avoided or destroyed. Words are invented and reinterpreted to have special meaning. Buzz phrases and clichés are used to simplify complex situations into trivial things that can be discounted or adopted without deep thought. "Thought-stopping" practices such as chanting, meditation and prayer are used to create altered states of suggestibility and lack of challenge.

Emotional control is used to both control and used to persuade. Guilt is regularly used to show a bad past that must be shunned and overcome. Fear is induced about outside threats, losing salvation, punishment within the group and doing anything without approval. Self-sustaining phobias are thus created about anything that may challenge the group's ideals. People who leave are framed as weak or evil. Extreme positions are taken that jerk emotions betweens excitement and dread.

While BITE is certainly catchy and is even a useful summary of many of the areas of examination already discussed (and previously identified by Singer and other cult experts), there are at least three objections that can be raised to the assertion that a BITE analysis reveals that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.

First, the methodology itself is extremely simplistic and overly broad to be useful in the specific application to Jehovah's Witnesses absent a detailed analysis of how each of the criteria are met and satisfied by specific practices and beliefs among Jehovah's Witnesses.

Second, an honest examination (and much of this has already been discussed above) of the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses would reveal that it is not within the extreme cultic nature and quality that Hassan means or attempts to gauge.  Clearly in comparing the detail of the BITE model with what is actually occurring within the environment and culture of Jehovah's Witnesses there is not a match. In fact, I would challenge any current or former Jehovah's Witness to read the pages above from Steve's book and explain to me how these factors describe Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact is that anyone with an intimate knowledge of the environment of Jehovah's Witnesses can easily see that it does not fit with the descriptions that Hassan provides. Very clearly, the examples that he gives and the type of activity that he describes are completely alien to the Jehovah's Witness experience.  Attempts by some to make applications of the "B" "T" and "E" prongs have been a real stretch at best. For example, critics have cited certains beliefs and aspects of the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses such as counsel to "dress modestly" or to "not listen to rap music" and made the ridiculous assertions that these fall within the behaviour control prong. This kind of thing is simply not the extreme cultic behavior that Hassan's model is meant to identify. Yet, even Hassan himself is not above committing such an error when in his book Releasing the Bonds, he points to the Jehovah's Witness belief against celebrating birthdays as evidence that the leadership is exercising "Behavior control."

Please. Stated again simply there is no rational basis for concluding that the B, T, or E prongs (incidently Festinger's original Cognitive Dissonance criteria) are fully satisfied by the culture, beliefs or practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The most valid criticism that has been raised is in the area of Information Control. For example, some claim that the Society's comdemnation of critical information is a form of Information Control. While there is certainly reason to be concerned about the Society's motivations and authority to urge its membership not to read critical information, the claim that its comdemnation of and proscription against reading critical information appears to be an oversimplification and a misapplication of what Hassan is really describing as a facet among true cults. 

Additionally, the fact is that while the Society comdemns critical information, it makes little to no effort to keep its members from actually receiving such information other than verbal warnings. More importantly, the issue of access to critical information is only a small part of the picture. When Hassan discusses Information Control, he means much more than that. He is talking about a systemic control of all information and especially the information which emanates from the leadership to effect the mind-control program. It is the resulting personality change from a pervasive system of mind-control that Hassan identifies as the primary hallmark of a cult. Jehovah's Witnesses do not undergo such a cultic personality change. Some do improve their character or give up certain habits or change certain behaviors but this process is extremely gradual and influenced by normal acceptance of Christian ideals and beliefs.

One may raise the argument, that in some cults the members also have access to critical information but because they are under mind-control they are not truly free to examine such without self-censorship or "self-stopping" mechanisms.  Hassan identifies some of these in his book such as chanting, focusing on a mantra, or persistent and intense reflection on a prescribed thought like "Rev. Moon is my father" etc. 

Needless to say these types of specific behaviors are not prescribed or taught by the Society and in some instances they are actually condemned. Yet, it must be acknowleged that to the extent that some individual Witnesses may refuse to consider such material out of fear or simply because they are conditioned to avoid it - and I personally was one of these  - there are, again, grounds for concern. As I recall, I refused to read critical literature (actually I only prejudged that it was critical) my first year in college simply because I knew that it 1) had not been written by Witnesses and 2) because I was pretty sure that the information would be critical of Jehovah's Witnesses and 3) had been taught that such activity opens one to "having doubts about the truth" and that "Satan can appear like an angel of light" or can be very subtle in his deception. Today, I can recognize that this attitude was the result of my upbringing as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and while rational, it was not balanced or objective.

Certainly, the Society needs to do more to encourage acceptance of critical information if it wishes to avoid this line of critique.  Nevertheless, while such "thought-stopping"-like behavior may be present with some Witnesses, it is almost certainly the case that there are millions of Witnesses who do freely engage in an examination into critical information. Incidents of punishment, including disfellowshipping or reproof, upon members for receiving, reading or considering negative, critical or unapproved (even "apostate") information has been anecdotal at best.

The Society does of course, uphold a requirement and policy that active members may not openly criticize the Organization. Some have been disciplined based upon trumped up scriptural reasons of "causing divisions" among the brotherhood. But even this aggregious conduct does not prevent the information itself from being disseminated. True, the "effectiveness" of the control is not what is in issue but I believe the point is still valid in that at most the Society's conduct can only have a chilling effect and does not constitute a restriction.

Finally, the third objection is that it appears that the reason why some rely upon Hassan's BITE methodology is because  Hassan himself has erroneously identified Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.  For an explanation why I believe this to be a disservice see the section on the next page, Don't the "Experts" Call Jehovah's Witnesses a Cult?

*For more info regarding Mr. Hassan see his listing on the Jehovah's Witnesses Who's Who page. 


15. THE COURT OF COMMON OPINION

Finally, the last factor to consider could go by many names.  Some might call it the "smell test" and others might call it common sense.  I call it the "Court of Common Opinion" and what I mean is simply to ask the question of the general public - "Is this group a cult?"

This is like "obscenity" in the law. It is an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" standard that is meant to draw upon life experience.  The fact is that most reasonable persons can easily recognize a cult when it is presented to them.  If you close your eyes and are asked to picture a cult, you might easily draw up an accurate portrayal in your mind, probably encompassing many of the previous 14 points. It is those in cults that have difficulty recognizing their own predicament. (In fact, one of Hassan's counseling strategies is to discuss his own experience in the Moonies and in doing so it helps the person then begin to relate what he is describing with their own situation.)

I believe that if a poll of several thousand people were taken on the street, asking them one question:  "Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult?" The answer that would be given by the majority of persons would be in the negative.

Why?  Opposers argue this is due to ignorance on the part of most of the actual beliefs, practices and culture within the Jehovah's Witnesses.  I would assert that most people know what they are talking about.  Most people who know Jehovah's Witnesses personally see them as unusual but as basically harmless good people and that assessment is accurate.

CONCLUSION and ADDITIONAL INFO

Th fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult may be difficult to swallow for opposers and for former members who have been hurt in some way by individual Jehovah's Witnesses or by the Organization.  And no doubt, persons with their own agendas to promote will continue to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.  But these claims do not change the situation. Anyone who does look at Witnesses objectively will, I believe, reach the same conclusion.

And yet, as pointed out above, there are several aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are cultic, some to a mild degree and a few that are seriously disconcerting.  These points need to be addressed and all Witnesses should be especially interested to strive to reform these areas not only due to outside criticism but for the betterment of the Organizaton and the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses.

For additional info consider Part Two of this page which includes the following sections:

• Don't the "Experts  Call Jehovah's Witnesses a Cult? 
• If it isn't a Cult, What is it?
• What is the Difference between Counter-Cult Movement and the Anti-Cult Movement?
• Am I Predisposed to Becoming a Cult Member?
• What is the Psychological Appeal of a Cult?
• What Questions Might I Ask a Cult Recruiter?
• The Continuum of Influence and Pursuasion
• Determining the Cultic Qualities Among Jehovah's Witnesses via Eduardo's "Singer Permanence Test"

(please note, some of the links to other pages on the site have been indicated but are not yet active, check back later)

* "Spiritual" harms or uncertain consequences in an after-life or in the future are much too subjective and speculative to be portrayed on the scale above.  It is impossible to objectively gauge or agree on such things.

Does being one of Jehovah's Witnesses result in harm? The objective answer is:

A. Social Skills Deficit

Due to the insularity of Jehovah's Witnesses and the encouragement of withdrawal from non-Witness relationships and activities by the leadership some Jehovah's Witnesses never develop some common social skills.

As a result many Witnesses find establishing and maintaining relationships with others who are not Jehovah's Witnesses difficult. Some experience awkwardness in common social settings while others may even possess irrational fears about others or in common social settings.

The degree to which a social skills deficit may develop is highly subjective and personal to the individual Jehovah's Witness.  To some extent any "permanent" harm that may result may be dependent upon whether the individual continues to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or leaves the Organization and upon whether they have spent time in relationships with non-Witnesses or maintained these during their membership.

While the "damage" of this harm is probably "minor" and likely to be overcome with time spent outside of the culture, for a few individuals, they may always manifest problems in dating, work-relationships, forming friendships, and in general "fitting-in" with others. This problem is more likely to be present with "born-ins" -- those raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses than with converts.

It should be noted however, that while being a Witness may result in stunted development of some social skills, in other areas being one of Jehovah's Witnesses may enhance some social skills.  For example, many Witnesses become quite confident with public speaking, in asserting themselves both in classroom and non-classroom settings, in voicing a minority viewpoint in the face of opposition, in approaching and speaking with strangers and other such common situations that non-Witnesses are fearful of or less adept at handling.

B. Black/White Filters and Legalistic Mindset

This aspect goes hand-in-hand with the social skills deficit because it impacts how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the world and relate to others.  Due to the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses and the focus on legalism, Jehovah's Witnesses often develop a "black or white" mentality which means that they tend to see everything as having two distinct and clear sides.  Very fundamentally, they believe that either something is Godly (often called "spiritual") or it is Satanic (often called "worldly").  Issues of morality and ethics are either correct or incorrect, right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural.  Jehovah's Witnesses reject almost all forms of relativism, moral subjectivity and religious plurality.

Naturally, not everyone in the world agrees on such a worldview or with the determination of what is Godly and what is not. Many people, including myself, advocate that there are in fact "shades of gray" when it comes to most things in life.  Thus like the social-skills deficit, the possession of such a mentality can be a detriment when relating with non-Witnesses. It should also be pointed out that rigid inflexible thinking is considered one of the hallmarks of a cult, thus to the extent that the legalistic mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses is inflexible, it may raise additional concern that such moral certainty crosses the boundary into a cultic quality. However, the apparent difference is that in the case of a cult, the Good vs. Evil worldview functions to facilitate the larger program of mind control. While in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, this worldview stems, not from an effort to control, but from an arrogant scriptural certainty and also from a particular doctrine/belief in the Grand Universal Trial.

C. Higher Education & The Doctrine of Mediocrity

Over a person's lifetime the difference in income potential between those who have a college degree and those who don't may be well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions more for those with advanced degrees.  So to the extent that the Jehovah's Witness culture has discouraged the matriculation of students into college it has harmed the members financially. This concern has been lessened somewhat since 1995 when the Society softened its official opposition towards college education, however since that time there have been equivocal statements regarding college made in the literature and from the platform. Some believe that the Society may return again to an overtly negative stance against college education for its members but it remains to be seen whether such would be effective in preventing the memberships from seeking higher education.  It seems the door to college has now been opened and it will not close again easily.  Nevertheless, in the past some Jehovah's Witnesses have been hurt in this way by the Society's teachings and by other aspects of the culture which deemphasize college education, savings, investments and other long-term financial planning. For more info regarding this topic see: Jehovah's Witnesses and Education

More tragic in my opinion is what I call the Doctrine of Mediocrity which arises out of much of the same cultural climate.  This "doctrine" brings about the Death of Talent and can be seen in the admonition to not seek any sort of personal gain in this system of things.  Sadly, many a talented Jehovah's Witness has given up developing their academic, athletic, musical or artistic abilities because they have listened to the Society's admonition to keep the "kingdom service" first in their lives. This message is reinforced by numerous "life stories" in the Watchtower magazine with tales of how some talented person or another gave up their former career or aspirations in order to devote themselves to the full-time ministry or Bethel service. True, these persons depicted usually claim to be happier today and satisfied with their life choices, but the message to Jehovah's Witness youth to emulate these persons is clear, and thus the danger is that not everyone who follows their example will similarly be happy with their life choices. And, of course, the Society does not print "sob stories" or tell the tales of persons who are unhappy that they listened to the Society's direction and rejected the college scholarships and careers and surrendered their dreams.

D. Specific Beliefs & Practices

The above concerns are minor compared to the potential harm that may result from certain specific beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. In some rare cases severe harm has resulted from these.

1. Policies, beliefs and practices relating to "Two-Witnesses" Rule and Child Abuse

First among these is the issue of child molestation and the potential for harm that results from certain cultural aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses including the Two-Witnesses Rule. Due to these circumstances in a small number of instances congregational elders have failed to adequately protect the victims of sexual abuse or to report criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities. In some cases the abuser was an elder, ministerial servant or other prominent person in the congregation who abused their position of trust.

Pedophilia is considered a gross sin by Jehovah's Witnesses and those found to be guilty of it have received the harshest form of Organizational punishment. Of course any such case of child abuse is an outrageous travesty and is upsetting to Jehovah's Witnesses and others. But it should be acknowledged that this problem is not as large as opposers would have it seem. The facts indicate that the number of actual incidences of child molestation that have occurred together with wrongdoing by the Society or local congregational authorities have been very few.  These have been fairly well publicized thus far and have even served as a basis for a handful of lawsuits.

As for child molestation or other sexual abuse generally, there has never been any data to support the belief that this occurs more frequently among Jehovah's Witnesses than among other groups. Likewise there is no evidence that Witness children or those who come into contact with Witnesses are at a greater risk for sexual abuse, although, perhaps surprisingly, it may be the case that the incidence rate is also not lower than other similar sized groups either. The claim that the Organization is a "Pedophile Paradise," while a catchy slogan,  is entirely hyperbolic and false. Yet, without any doubt, there has been and continues to be a comparative amount of sexual abuse within Jehovah's Witness households equal to the problem within larger society and despite strong social and religious taboos the problem is not necesarilly lessening. This fact alone should be shocking to fellow Witnesses and it should raise questions about whether there are other aspects of the culture such as totalism and insularity which are not helping to solve the problem.

As for fears of encountering a Witness pedophile in the house-to-house ministry and it resulting in some harm to unsuspecting children these are completely overblown.  Not only would such be extremely unlikely in the first case, but the Witnessing methods themselves do not lend themselves to opportunistic attacks since Witnesses work in pairs and groups. Among Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Witnesses, sexual abuse, as in society at large, is mostly a crime committed by known persons to the victim thus the fears raised by some about Witness molesters encountering stranger children and either acting opportunistically or returning to commit such a crime are the product of wild imagination and fear-mongering.

The problems of child sexual abuse within the Organization are largely a matter of past policies but the Society still has a way to go to adequately address these important issues. However, this problem alone does not justify attaching the cult label any more than it would support so-labeling the Catholic Church or any other religion where there has been similar wrongdoing. Certainly, unlike certain well-known cult groups such as The Family (COG), The Fourth Wall (Sullivan Institute), Warren Jeffs' cult (FLDS), etc., there is nothing in the culture of Jehovah's Witnesses, which contributes to the sexual exploitation of children. For the record, many of the policies and practices that contributed to the problem of reporting to law enforcement authorities and to sexual abusers holding positions of authority within the Organization have changed and this has been a directly positive result of the attention brought by critics of the Society in this area. For a discussion on this topic visit this page: Silent Lambs No More

2. Blood Doctrine

Second is an area which impacts significantly more persons and that is the issue of the medical use of blood.  Jehovah's Witnesses and blood have a history dating back to 1944 when blood transfusions were first rejected among Jehovah's Witnesses. Since then the Society's position has evolved. However, only some forms and parts of blood are approved and accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses today.  While the actual number of cases where harm has resulted is apparently small, the fact remains that the teachings regarding blood pose a potential danger and harm to all of Jehovah's Witnesses.  For an in depth discussion of this topic visit this page: On Blood

Even though there is a potential for great harm to result, the issue here is one of doctrinal error.  Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong to reject this form of modern medicine but this is not enough to justify the cult label. In my opinion, this wrong belief of Witnesses is analogous to the acceptance of military service by most churches where death may also result as a consequence.

3. Disfellowshipping and Disassociation

Third is the area that impacts the largest number of persons of these three areas discussed and it is the teaching and practices having to do with disfellowshipping and disassociation.  Certainly any group may establish criteria for membership and it is more or less clear to members when they become Jehovah's Witnesses that they may be subject to disfellowshipping or what the consequences of voluntary disassociation may be.  But even so, the practice of disfellowshipping is the most cultic of any feature of Jehovah's Witnesses because the action is often used by the Organization to silence opposing viewpoints, to enforce conformity and as a form of punishment. Quite frequently the underlying basis for the disfellowshipping action is only a pretext - especially in cases where the person is disfellowshipped for "causing divisions," "spreading gossip about the Organization," "for apostasy" and matters such as these. 

The similar practice of "disassociation" is even more cultic than disfellowshipping. The fact that someone cannot simply withdraw their membership without any injury to their reputation or social network is simply outrageous and justfiably lambasted by critics. Among the various criteria proposed for identifying cults that some academics have used, the restriction on exiting the group is frequently one of the identified factors. It is sometimes referred to as "exit costs."  True, there is not a physical barrier to exiting but the emotional, psychological and social consequences of treating one who voluntarily terminates their association with Jehovah's Witnesses can be just as binding as any physical chains. In my opinion, this practice is probably the most heinous among Jehovah's Witnesses and the most in need of reform.

The major harm that results to members from these practices is the emotional damage from broken and strained relationships between active Witnesses and ex-Witnesses, especially when familial bonds are impacted. However some ex-Witnesses may also experience some psychological and psychosomatic problems and even serious illness as a result of residual beliefs and worldview that foretells their doom for being outside of God's ark when the Day of Judgment arrives. Other economic and social harms may result from Witness business owners and professionals that formerly relied upon the goodwill of their fellow Witnesses who now treat them worse than strangers.

Persons who do label Jehovah's Witnesses a cult will almost without fail cite the practice of disfellowshipping and disassociation as proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. Truly, disfellowshipping and disassociation as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses are cultic in nature. This is especially true of the imposition upon the consciences of individual Witnesses to carry out the Organizational action and to shun the person in daily life  For an in depth discussion on this topic, see this page: On Disfellowshipping

Conclusion of Harm Analysis: Harm is Important But it is Not the Only Thing

If we were to limit the analysis to one factor then certainly whether the group harmed the individuals would be the least debatable to evaluate.  All of the other factors discussed here may in fact be less determinative than the analysis of harm but harm is not the only factor which must be considered. It could be argued that true cults are harmful to their members almost without any subjective judgment of whether there is harm.  This is not the case with Jehovah's Witnesses.  While there may be some harm that occurs because one is a Jehovah's Witness, on balance, the development and encouragement towards an ideal Christian life-style is positive and being a Witness is harmless.