One such example which comes to mind is Steve Hassan whose BITE paradigm is discussed on the previous page.  Hassan is frequently cited by opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses. Although Hassan doesn't actually list Jehovah's Witnesses in the main body of his seminal work, Combatting Cult Mind Control, there is a small section in the bibliography section of the book which lists some works critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. Elsewhere, such as on his website, Hassan labels Jehovah's Witnesses as a "cult." In his book Releasing the Bonds, Hassan cites Jehovah's Witnesses more frequently, attaching the cult label.

Curiously, a review of his various publications reveals that he apparently has never engaged in any in-depth study of Jehovah's Witnesses in particular.  There certainly are no complete case studies or any formal analysis of Jehovah's Witnesses presented in any of his published writings.

Hassan gives evidence of his profound lack of misunderstanding Witness theology in the examples he provides in his book Releasing the Bonds.

Apparently Hassan has given a special presentation on at least one occasion to a group of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, and has counseled some former members, and read many of the seminal works by Franz and Watters, etc. However, it is painfully obvious that he has never engaged in participatory observation, nor doubtful that he has ever been to even a single meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet despite this lack of an informed basis, Hassan continues to lump Jehovah's Witnesses together with other "destructive cults" and thus is a popular source for those opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses.

For a long time, I have been puzzled by this, since Hassan seems to be an otherwise astute academic and cult researcher, who undoubtedly has helped countless persons to cope with post-cult life and to come out of some of them. Then, I came across this very telling and candid admission in Releasing the Bonds at page 205:

        "It is a scene that is familiar to most of us: a man comes to my door, ready to hand me the WatchTower publication. [sic] Very few people understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill the criteria of a mind control cult. Until former members educated me, I didn't believe that it was."

So! As can be seen from Hassan's own admission, despite being a cult expert, he correctly believed that Jehovah's Witnesses were not a cult until he was educated by former members. This undoubtedly shows not only the obvious bias of his sources but it also supports the presumption that he has never engaged in rigorous academic study of Witnesses prior to reaching the conclusion that the group is correctly qualified as a cult.

It is my belief that Hassan has recognized some of the concepts and terms that are part of Jehovah's Witnesses culture and which he as seen present in some Bible-based cults, such terms as "the last days," "armageddon," "the truth," "governing body" etc., and made the illogical connection between these cults and the Witnesses.

Further, it seems evident that Hassan has recognized some of the legitimately cultic qualities of Jehovah's Witnesses, yet failed to apply his own criteria or that of his predecessors.

For example, Hassan sets forth three basic criteria for a destructive mind control cult: Authoritarian leadership, Recruitment Deception and Destructive mind control. 

While Jehovah's Witnesses do possess the first criteria, their recruitment process and indoctrination is fairly transparent and the presence of a systematic program of mind control is lacking among the Witnesses.

Likewise, Hassan acknowledges and agrees with Lifton that all eight of Lifton's criteria of mind control should be present for a group to be considered engaging in destructive mind control.  While some of these criteria are present to a degree among Jehovah's Witnesses, an honest assessment reveals that not all criteria are met.

Taken on a whole, it appears that Hassan has concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are a destructive mind controlling cult based upon a limited amount of literature, viewpoint from ex-members, and his counseling experience of former members.  One need only read what he writes and the phrasing of the words that he puts into the mouths of his "Jehovah's Witness" examples and the ideas which he attributes to them, to understand that his grasp of the real theology, psycho-social behavior and social dynamics of Jehovah's Witneses is superficial; not too mention the complex cultural nuances that influence the functioning Jehovah's Witness.

It can only be hoped that Hassan will some day make a determined study of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to render a better informed opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses or at least support his conclusions with better proof and reason.

For more information about Steve Hassan you may check the Jehovah's Witness Who's Who page.

No doubt part of the problem of determining what label, if any, should attach to Jehovah's Witnesses is the reliance upon professional counselors and therapists who specialized in the cult/anti-cult field.  While we can have every regard for the work these persons do, and possibly they help many people to better function in society, to use these professionals as a basis for defining a group is entirely wrong. 

For one thing, these types of professionals deal with individuals who seek them out for counseling or therapy.  As any educated person knows, it is simply a logical fallacy (i.e. a mistake) to extend conclusions and summations and theories about a group based upon the particularities encountered with an individual of that group.  Even if one manages to obtain a sizable number of individuals (i.e. a large sample) of a group, the dangers of generalization and stereotyping will be present.

More importantly, these types of professionals almost always rely upon secondary or even third-party data and information to help them reach their conclusions.  Few, if none, of these cult/anti-cult counselors ever engaged in primary research or participatory observation.  Hassan is notable because he is one of the few anti-cult therapist-experts that was at one time a high-level member of the Moonies (Unification Church), a group often called a cult. Without a doubt Hassan has helped countless people and their families in coping with the effects of destructive cults and aided many persons to come out of them.  His methodology, the Strategic Interaction Approach, and the work that he does is very useful when dealing with cults and those coming out of them or who have lost loved ones to them. Hassan's focus is with helping people and dealing with persons in cults or who have left them, but defining cults and more importantly, making an objective assessment about whether a group is or is not a cult is not his expertise or within his education and training.

No, counselors and therapists are simply the wrong professionals to turn to in seeking to understand just what label, if any, we should attach to Jehovah's Witnesses.  These professionals study and deal with individuals.

The professionals whose job it is to study groups are called sociologists and these persons for the most part do not label Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.

How some sociologists classify Jehovah's Witnesses:

• J. Gordon Melton - "primary body within Adventist family"*
• Bryan Wilson - "Adventist sect" or "revolutionist sect"
• James Beckford - "movement"**
• Peter L. Berger - "legalistic, prophetic sect"
• Melvin D. Curry - "sect"

* Melton appears to be a controversial figure in this field. Some Counter-Cult Movement advocates label him a "cult apologist" because he does not agree with them that Witnesses and other groups are cults. Melton received much criticism when he accepted airfare, lodging and a stipend for travelling to Japan to testify in the defense of the Aum Shrinrikyo cult after that group's deadly poison gas attack on the Tokyo subways. Melton is also listed as a professional referral on the Scientology controlled Cult Awareness Network.

Like most sociologists, Melton's objective and academic approach irks the CCMers and ACMers because his conclusions do not support the popular campaign against such groups. For these persons, there is no such thing as objective evaluation of such groups without reconciling the theological aspects of the group -- and anything outside of historical orthodoxy is unacceptable.  See this page for some info from these forces which is negative towards Melton:  Apologetics - Melton

**Beckford's classification of most religious groups as "movements", including Jehovah's Witnesses, goes against the normal treatment of the term.  Religious "movements" typically involves mass conversions of large numbers of people in a relatively short duration or more or less simultaneously. By the traditional view, Jehovah's Witnesses only experienced such a "movement" during the years prior to the expectations centered on 1925 and again in the years prior to 1975.

Interestingly enough, while their hasn't been a tremendous amount of study of Jehovah's Witnesses by sociologists, the majority of those sociologists who have studied them have opted to label Jehovah's Witnesses a SECT.

        sect n.
                1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or         distinctions of belief or practice. 2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger         denomination. 3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

While most Jehovah's Witnesses would bristle at the term "sect" being applied to the religion, and despite the official rejection of this view by the Society, this appears to be the correct designation.

The term sect when applied to religious groups denotes the state of being a sub-set (or division) of a larger denomination or faith.  It bears pointing out that there is also an implication of deviance and some taint of "illegitimacy" to the term - but less aggressive as those associated with the cult label. 

Since the officially promulgated view of Jehovah's Witnesses is that they are not a faction of any other religion or denomination but are an entirely (re-)new(ed) religion, patterned after the 1st Century christian church, Jehovah's Witnesses do not use the term sect to describe themselves.

But the facts are contrary to the official position and claims.  The facts are that the Bible Students, founded and led by Charles T. Russell (a portion of which came to be Jehovah's Witnesses), had a distinct arising out of 19th Century Adventism and thus Jehovah's Witnesses today are properly considered an Adventist sect.  (See: The Adventist Roots of Jehovah's Witnesses)

In fact, should Witnesses continue in their present international growth they are likely to reach the status of denomination or even church, although they will always have the Adventist heritage.  This will likely accompany certain reformations in doctrine and practices which are marginalizing it from the greater body of Christianity and from society in general.

I find sociologist Bryan Wilson's definition of a sect particularly interesting:

        the small religious group in which membership is voluntary and conditional upon some mark of merit--understanding the group's teaching, or experience, of some personal religious ecstasy--upon the basis of which association can arise. (Sects and Society, p. 3)

Wilson's "Adventist Sect" definition includes these parts:

1.        focuses attention on the coming overthrow of the present world order
2.        emphasizes the prophetic literature of the Bible (often interpreted allegorically)
3.        regards conventional eschatological ideas of heaven and hell as false, and thus replaces them with the resurrection         of the dead for judgment as the principal eschatological event
4.        views Christ as a divine commander as well as Savior
5.        subscribes to a high moral standard based on the moral precepts of Jesus
6.        participation in the new world order will be dependent on maintaining doctrinal and moral rectitude
7.        evangelizes through the preaching of the word and despises emotionalism
8.        regards the established church as anti-Christ
9.        lives separate from the world while at the same time living in the world
10.        is hostile towards the wider society and anticipates its violent overthrow

Anyone familiar with Jehovah's Witness can easily recognize how well the doctrines, beliefs and culture match Wilson's definition.

The Counter-Cult Movement (a.k.a. CCM or discernment ministries) is composed primarily of conservative Protestant Christian individuals and agencies and other Evangelical Christians who attempt to raise public concern about religious groups which they feel hold dangerous, non-traditional beliefs. They are sometimes called heresy hunters or heresiologists. CCMers primarilly incorporate a theological factor in their definition and assessment of a cult and hold that any group which claims to be Christian but which is non-orthodox is a cult.  The Counter-Cult Movement began early in the 20th Century as a reaction against the loss in membership from established churches to new religious movements and groups.

The Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) consists of mostly secular individuals and groups who attempt to raise public consciousness about what they feel are extremely dangerous high-pressure groups. As they see it, the threat comes from small, coercive, manipulative groups -- mostly new religious movements. The ideas of the Anti-Cult Movement is limited in North America due to our culture of religious tolerance and plurality but their beliefs are accepted in many other countries, notably China and some countries in Western Europe. The ACMers are typically the "cult professionals" and counselors such as Steve Hassan who are concerned about the use of mind-control and the harm which may occur from membership in cults. The Anti-Cult Movement began in the late 20th Century (especially beginning in the 70s) and received a lot of attention due to the high-profile tragedies such as Jim Jones and the People's Temple, the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst by the SLA, and other groups.  More recent events such as the Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, the mass-suicide of the Heaven's Gate members and the terrorist activities of groups such as Aum Shinrikyo have kept the ACMers in business and on-call for interviews and appearances by the media.

These groups should be distinguished from professionals and experts, mostly sociologists and social psychologists, who study non-traditional groups, new religious movements, etc. as a focus of their scientific study.
For more info see this page: What is a Cult?

Dr. Robert B. Cialdini Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, has spent over fifteen years in the scientific investigation of the processes whereby people are persuaded and reach their decisions. He enumerates six fundamental social and psychological principles underlying the thousands of individual tactics that successful persuaders or compliance practitioners use every day to get us to say yes.  (Note these are not limited to analysis of cult tactics but are applicable to all forms of pursuasion including advertising.)

Cialdini's Six Aspects of Human Psychology that Open the Door to Control by Others

1. Consistency - we tend to justify our past behaviour
2. Reciprocity - If someone gives us something, we try to repay it in kind
3. Social Proof - We try to find out what other people think is correct
4. Authority - We have a deep-seated sense of duty to authority figures
5. Liking - We obey people that we like
6. Scarcity - If we come to want something, we can be made to fear that if we wait too long that it may pass.  We want to take it now.

For detailed reading upon these aspects Google him or visit this page: Cialdini

According to Margaret Thaler Singer, "it is the cult environment that produces and keeps in place the cult identity."  Similarly the "beliefs a person may adopt about the world, about a particular philosophy, and even about himself or herself are reversible when the person is out of the environment that induced those beliefs." (Cults in Our Midst, p.78-9)

Singer's insight suggests a methodology of identifying exactly what facets of the Organization and Jehovah's Witnesses' religion are potentially "cultic" in nature.  I call this methodology my Singer Permanence Test.

It is rather simple.  All one needs to do is to perform a self-assessment of what aspects of their personality and belief-system (specific doctrines and beliefs) have remained since they have left the Organization  (i.e. the "environment that induced those beliefs").

Ideally this test should be applied some time after one leaves or removes oneself from the Organization and Jehovah's Witness religion. Singer's research demonstrates that the "deprogramming" occurs remarkably quickly after removal from the cultic environment so those aspects which most readily change are probably more likely to be cultic than simply "old habits which may die hard" and which may not be cultic.

This assessment should probably be performed no later than 18 months after leaving the Organization or any noticeable changes may be due to something else like simply personal growth and life experience.

While everyone is different of course, it is my belief that a lot of the "core beliefs" regarding God, Jesus, the Ransom, the Bible, basic morality, etc. will remain intact, more or less permanently, after one leaves Jehovah's Witnesses or removes themselves from the environment.  Thus the Singer Permanence Test would suggest that these things are not cultic in nature or the product of cultic-relationships.

In contrast, the elements that do evaporate, dissolve or change after leaving the Organization would be suspected of being cultic.

(But note that some beliefs or characteristics which you may no longer have, may have disregarded by you for other reasons having nothing to do with the "environment."  For example, if based upon new information, facts you have learned, or your own personal study about scriptures, etc. you may come to believe differently or change your beliefs about something.  That change is not because the environment has changed but due to these other reasons.  Therefore, when making your assessment about what has changed about you, it is important to filter the results and really ask yourself if the previous aspect, belief, state, mentality, etc. AROSE INITIALLY due to the ENVIRONMENT or was purely information or scripture based understanding AND whether the new state or change has resulted from your NEW ENVIRONMENT and not because of other factors. If the change is not because of the environment than these things which you have noticed have changed are probably not cultic.

While each individual's own list may vary, the following represents some possibilities where change may occur. (NOTE!!! Not everything that I list here are my own changes, some are just speculative!)

-        One's attitude/behavior towards "worldly" (non-JW) persons
-        Decreased guilt over not doing enough in field-service or missing meetings
-        Decreased feelings of shame over normal sexual activities like masturbation, sex play or sexual experimentation
-        One's attitude/behavior towards disfellowshipped persons or ex-Jehovah's Witnesses
-        One's attitude/behavior towards "anti-Jehovah's Witness" information
-        One's view that the lens of the "truth" is not the only way to look at things or to process information
-        A greater openness and acceptance to hear contrary points of view and examine information that would have been immediately "walled off" before
-        Decreased fear of being "caught in the act" of doing something "bad" by other Jehovah's Witnesses or the Elders
-        Seeing more "good" and beauty in other religions/institutions and people
-        Decreased fear of being "troubled by the demons" or Satan.  Similarly, less fear about examining or interaction with pagan and occult materials or objects or anything that one would have formerly called "demonic" or "spiritistic" 
-        Decreased fear and guilt about entering other religious institutions, churches or attending other religious services
-        Decreased fear or anxiety about engaging in previously "forbidden" activities, including holidays or even practices that were suspect or condemned such as chanting, hypnotheraphy, meditation, yoga, tantric sex, etc.
-        Decreased feelings of superiority or elitism and increased understanding of "being like everyone else"
-        Greater freedom of self-expression in dress and grooming, attitude and behavior
-        Decreased feelings of persecution and paranoia
-        Decreased feelings of being "my brother's keeper" and the need to report any "wrongdoing" of others to the Elders
-        Decreased criticism of and having less of a critical eye towards other fellow Witnesses; more acceptance of their faults, foibles and idiosyncrasies
-        Decreased focus on a "future reward" and greater appreciation for the rewards and blessings in the present
-        Making decisions for yourself without first consulting any literature or anyone else (True, it is sometimes good to consult external information or to seek advice, but this is different from a cultic attribute that surrenders an individual's judgment and conscience to that of the leadership or collective group.)
-        Greater acceptance and allowance of "negative" thoughts about the Organization
-        Decreased belief that Jehovah God is using the Organization as the "only sole channel of Divine communication with mankind"

I encourage you to perform your own Singer Permanence Test and create your own list.  While this method may be useful in identifying some of the cultic qualities that exist among Jehovah's Witnesses, I wish to reiterate that Jehovah's Witnesses as a body are not a cult as I have attempted to demonstrate on the previous page.