Orchid Girl's Blog

A Not-So-Hostile Takeover

 

     As some of my readers may remember, I have mentioned in previous blog posts about the church I used to attend. Members talked among themselves about their extended family members complaining that they thought we were brainwashed into being part of the church. Every time the word 'brainwashing' came to mind, what we took to mean brainwashing consisted of torture and abuse, perhaps including starvation, food deprivation, physical punishment, harassment, systematic insults and degradation, etc. We, of course, knew that didn't exist in our church. So, of course, we denied the accusations and went our merry way, or not so merry as the case may be.

     'Brainwashing' conjures up mental images of forcibly coercing someone to do what they otherwise would not do. That's like a hostile takeover. But we all knew among ourselves that we, the adults anyway, were there by choice. As for the children, we felt it was our God-given responsibility to raise them according to our beliefs of what was right or wrong. I still believe that.

     Recently, I was thinking back to those days. I have seen the aftermath of the Jim Jones tragedy on the news after it unfolded in Guyana. I have seen the aftermath of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians tragedy on the news after it unfolded in Waco, Texas. I have seen news footage of court battles in some of the western U.S. states where Mormon offshoot cults who practice polygamy force minor girls to marry very old men or church leaders forcibly raping them with the consent of their parents and cause these girls to pop out as many babies as possible for the sake of 'salvation.' Clearly, there was brainwashing going on. Did it involve forcible starvation, humiliation, degradation, sleep deprivation? I doubt it. I also doubt that the victims see themselves as being brainwashed. I'm sure that most live their lives putting smiles on their faces every morning and telling themselves that they're happy, or that they should be if they're not. I'm sure they look at their well fed, healthy bodies, their clean bright faces, their clean, laundered clothing and believe this is proof that God is surely taking care of them because they're obedient. And as sure as God made little green apples, they believe their obedience is to God, not just some human leader.

     In retrospect, it made me wonder if I really knew the meaning of the word 'brainwashing.' What exactly does brainwashing involve. So I decided to research it a little bit. What I found is listed below. I have in quotes the studies of Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, who is a well known American psychiatrist and author who specializes in psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and his theory of thought reform, which is his term for brainwashing; and the commentary article titled "How Brainwashing Works" by Julia Layton, her writings of Dr. Lifton's studies, written for HowStuffWorks.Com which is part of the Discovery Health Channel.

     Dr. Lifton studied the coercive techniques used on American POW's after they returned from their foreign prison camps. He wrote a book in 1961 titled "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China." Dr. Lifton referred to brainwashing as thought reform. It's commonly called brainwashing. Still, others term it mind control. Basically, it's still all the same thing. It all boils down to someone very effectively pushing your mental and emotional buttons to get you to do what people would never normally do, or give up control over their lives in ways that most people would never agree to do. In his book, Dr. Lifton describes eight methods used to coerce people into performing destructive and/or self destructive behaviors, or give up control over their lives, etc. I haven't read the book itself, but Julia Layton goes into great detail in her writings of Dr. Lifton's eight methods. I am going to list these eight methods and then Ms. Layton's writings.

     According to Wikipedia, Dr. Lifton claims eight steps:

1. Milieu Control.This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
2. Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences.
3. Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
4. Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
5. Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
6. Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
7. Doctrine over person. Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
8. Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

     Ms. Julia Layton on behalf of HowStuffWorks.com, writing her interpretation of Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's theory, reorganized this theory into 10 steps being:

• Assault on identity: You are not who you think you are. This is a systematic attack on a target's sense of self (also called his identity or ego) and his core belief system. The agent denies everything that makes the target who he is: "You are not a soldier." "You are not a man." "You are not defending freedom." The target is under constant attack for days, weeks or months, to the point that he becomes exhausted, confused and disoriented. In this state, his beliefs seem less solid.
• Guilt: You are bad. While the identity crisis is setting in, the agent is simultaneously creating an overwhelming sense of guilt in the target. He repeatedly and mercilessly attacks the subject for any "sin" the target has committed, large or small. He may criticize the target for everything from the "evilness" of his beliefs to the way he eats too slowly. The target begins to feel a general sense of shame, that everything he does is wrong.
• Self-betrayal: Agree with me that you are bad. Once the subject is disoriented and drowning in guilt, the agent forces him (either with the threat of physical harm or of continuance of the mental attack) to denounce his family, friends and peers who share the same "wrong" belief system that he holds. This betrayal of his own beliefs and of people he feels a sense of loyalty to increases the shame and loss of identity the target is already experiencing.
• Breaking point: Who am I, where am I and what am I supposed to do? With his identity in crisis, experiencing deep shame and having betrayed what he has always believed in, the target may undergo what in the lay community is referred to as a "nervous breakdown." In psychology, "nervous breakdown" is really just a collection of severe symptoms that can indicate any number of psychological disturbances. It may involve uncontrollable sobbing, deep depression and general disorientation. The target may have lost his grip on reality and have the feeling of being completely lost and alone. When the target reaches his breaking point, his sense of self is pretty much up for grabs -- he has no clear understanding of who he is or what is happening to him. At this point, the agent sets up the temptation to convert to another belief system that will save the target from his misery.
• Leniency: I can help you. With ­the target in a state of crisis, the agent offers some small kindness or reprieve from the abuse. He may offer the target a drink of water, or take a moment to ask the target what he misses about home. In a state of breakdown resulting from an endless psychological attack, the small kindness seems huge, and the target may experience a sense of relief and gratitude completely out of proportion to the offering, as if the agent has saved his life.
• Compulsion to confession: You can help yourself. For the first time in the brainwashing process, the target is faced with the contrast between the guilt and pain of identity assault and the sudden relief of leniency. The target may feel a desire to reciprocate the kindness offered to him, and at this point, the agent may present the possibility of confession as a means to relieving guilt and pain.
• Channeling of guilt: This is why you're in pain. After weeks or months of assault, confusion, breakdown and moments of leniency, the target's guilt has lost all meaning -- he's not sure what he has done wrong, he just knows he is wrong. This creates something of a blank slate that lets the agent fill in the blanks: He can attach that guilt, that sense of "wrongness," to whatever he wants. The agent attaches the target's guilt to the belief system the agent is trying to replace. The target comes to believe it is his belief system that is the cause of his shame. The contrast between old and new has been established: The old belief system is associated with psychological (and usually physical) agony; and the new belief system is associated with the possibility of escaping that agony.
• Releasing of guilt: It's not me; it's my beliefs.The embattled target is relieved to learn there is an external cause of his wrongness, that it is not he himself that is inescapably bad -- this means he can escape his wrongness by escaping the wrong belief system. All he has to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system, and he won't be in pain anymore. The target has the power to release himself from wrongness by confessing to acts associated with his old belief system. With his full confessions, the target has completed his psychological rejection of his former identity. It is now up to the agent to offer the target a new one.
• Progress and harmony: If you want, you can choose good. The agent introduces a new belief system as the path to "good." At this stage, the agent stops the abuse, offering the target physical comfort and mental calm in conjunction with the new belief system. The target is made to feel that it is he who must choose between old and new, giving the target the sense that his fate is in his own hands. The target has already denounced his old belief system in response to leniency and to­rment, and making a "conscious choice" in favor of the contrasting belief system helps to further relieve his guilt: If he truly believes, then he really didn't betray anyone. The choice is not a difficult one: The new identity is safe and desirable because it is nothing like the one that led to his breakdown.
• Final confession and rebirth: I choose good.Contrasting the agony of the old with the peacefulness of the new, the target chooses the new identity, clinging to it like a life preserver. He rejects his old belief system and pledges allegiance to the new one that is going to make his life better. At this final stage, there are often rituals or ceremonies to induct the converted target into his new community. This stage has been described by some brainwashing victims as a feeling of "rebirth."

Note: Cults and churches don't obtain members with starvation, violence or threats. They do either one of two things. They sometimes tantalize by offering something that no one else offers or by making you think what you need cannot be found elsewhere such as peace, love, acceptance, God's acceptance, righteousness, etc. or by instilling fear of retribution by outside forces for not obeying God, and naturally, protection from this retribution can only be accomplished by joining their group and obeying their every word.

     At the beginning, when I started attending, there were few congregations available. I lived in the farmland in the middle of Wisconsin about 50 or so miles outside of Eau Claire. The nearest congregation was in St. Paul in Minnesota. When I moved to Chicago there was a congregation in one of the suburbs.

     After listing the descriptions of brainwashing, I go now to things we were taught:

     We were not to listen to any religious programs other than theirs.

     We were not to attend any other churches.

     We were not to ask advice from church leaders from other religious organizations.

     We were supposed to memorize as much of the bible as we could and our church's interpretation of these verses so if asked any question on any topic found in the bible, we could answer anything. If there was something we did not know, we were supposed to refer them to our ministry.

     We were taught that our church was the only source of the truth.

     We were taught God only gave the truth to our church.

     We were taught God only loves our church and members.

     We were taught God loves us because we obey and nobody else does obey. At the same time in practically the same breath, we were taught that God loves all people. This confused me. It was explained to me that all things were relative. He loves them, but loves us more.

     We were taught God called us to obey and wanted us to have salvation, while at the same time he was not calling outsiders to obey because he did not want them to have salvation YET. This was a bit confusing to me. We were taught that God hated their disobedience, but did not call them to obey. Their calling was supposed to come much later after being punished for their disobedience.

     Officially, they taught that God loves all races equally. However, there were some ministers that injected their own beliefs that God was punishing blacks because of some sin that was purported to have been committed by one of the sons of Noah. Making them black was his mark to let everyone know who the offspring was of that particular son of Noah. This too was confusing to me. God was supposedly the author of the concept of fairness. Where's the fairness in punishing children for what their ancestor does?

     We were taught that Adam and Eve were white, that they had children of many races, that each race was supposed to stick only with each other, and that Eve had hundreds of children. I've had a child. I know how physically painful that is. My mind reels at the idea of one woman being expected to give birth to hundreds all by herself, with no pain medications and no doctor. Of course, the bible doesn't actually address any of this, but let's face it. Humanity would have stopped completely if all they had was just Cain and Abel. We all know they themselves could not have had any babies. It takes females. There had to be some daughters. Some things have to be extrapolated. Still, this was going too far even for me. I could not imagine one woman having that many children and being able to properly take care of them and keep them fed, clothed, and kept alive. Every parent knows how children run wild, especially when your back is turned and your attention is focused on another child or issue. This was of course, parlayed into the concept that this is what women are for: to stay at home, have as many babies as possible, not work (which of course many still had to), and do all the housekeeping and child-raising all without the help of the hubbies. There was also the undercurrent that implied that it was somehow better to be white in God's eyes, although they never came straight out and said it.

     We were taught the 1950's model of family definition as the ultimate view of how families were supposed to exist and behave. Women were supposed to wear dresses (although outside of church most wore feminine pants), men were supposed to be the boss (and many took this to extremes), children were only supposed to be disciplined with spanking (I heard one beating take place although I was never in a position to visually see it happening), women were never supposed to disagree with or disobey the husband no matter how crazy he may be, children were never supposed to disagree or disobey no matter what, divorce was practically unspeakable, and a person who got a divorce was expected to never marry again unless the other divorced spouse died.

     Women could not preach. This rule was changed just before I quit in 1997.

     A person who remarried while the divorced spouse was still alive would be disfellowshiped. I know some instances where women have divorced second husbands who they dearly loved and with whom they had excellent relationships and remarried an abusive first husband because they could not bear to be alone the rest of their lives or bear to be without the church. This rule was changed many years later after untold numbers of families were ripped apart and wives were again in the grip of abusive husbands.

     A person could think whatever they wanted, but if they voiced their disagreement to anyone other than a minister, they would be disfellowshiped.

     A person who was disfellowshiped was not only no longer a member, but shunning was required.

     We were taught that God hates people getting medical help. This was later changed. However, there are still members who follow this. I personally know of a man who got sick with a very common virus. He never got help. He died. His wife is now a widow and his daughter is fatherless. They take it as God's will. He was one of the really nice guys. I have seen, even after the rule was changed, some members scolding other members for getting medical help. If they catch you getting medical help, it's seen at not having enough faith.

     We were taught that God is all powerful and his will cannot be circumvented.

     We were taught that if a person gets sick, God wanted them to be sick. If they die from that sickness, God wanted them to die. This confused me. If one gets medical help, and with that medical help he survives his illness, and God wanted that person to die, then God can't be all that powerful and he can be circumvented. On the other hand couldn't survival be taken as proof that it wasn't God's will that a person survives? Could it be taken as proof that God doesn't hate when people get medical help?

     We were taught that homosexuality is evil and that God not only hates homosexuality, but the gays themselves. They used as examples Sodom and Gomorrah.

     Alcoholism was taught as being wrong, but was generally swept under the rug. They knew there was a lot of it in the church. They did give sermons advocating controlling your personal vices, but never dealt with individuals they knew had problems with it. Some even came to services smelling like alcohol. This was not something that could get yourself booted.

     Child sexual abuse was also strongly dis-advised. Again was generally swept under the rug. They knew of children that were being molested and raped. They did nothing. Even the church founder made a comment once that child molesters had to just be trusted to learn from God and control themselves. I once heard a man say in a room crowded with parents and young children that he did not believe that sexual abuse against a child was harmful to the child, that the child was only being "coached". I stood there in a state of shock. None of the other parents even blinked, but kept going about their business as if nothing had been said. I thought to myself "Is no one going to call him out on that?" I did later, but I'm female. Not being male and/or clergy, my argument fell on deaf ears. I mentioned it to his wife later. She insisted she never heard him say it. There is so much she "doesn't remember" or "remembers differently."

     Rape was also hated by the church, but they never defined what they considered rape. Every time it was in a sermon, their reference was always as something done by outsiders. This inspires many to believe that wives don't get raped by husbands, no matter what the husband does. There are many who know it happens, but it's never mentioned. As for women who are acknowledged as being raped, they are often told to "just get over it" (not by the ministry, but by a few general members).

     They taught that all other-worldly pursuits and gifts are evil and condemned by God. In the past few years, they have softened their stance a little. They now accept some gifts, but only if they're used in conjunction with the outward worship of God.

     They taught us that all make-up (Gasp! Dare I say the word?) is evil. Only whores and prostitutes wear make-up! The belief goes that any female wearing make-up is just trying to gain attention from guys and we can't have that now can we? And any guys wearing make-up..... gay! Can we say 'booted'?

     They taught us that Satan is everywhere and his demons are everywhere.

     They taught us that most music is inspired by Satan.

     They taught us that most dance is inspired by Satan.

     They taught us that there is no afterlife. When you're dead, you're dead all the way through.

     They taught us there is no eternal spirit in humans.....yet. This has yet to be accomplished. We were taught that the physical body was the definition of soul. All humanity (minus God's chosen obedient worshipers) had to wait for 1,000 years after the end of an era of 6,000 years before the majority of humankind would be provided with their eternal spirit body. The obedient worshipers, which were limited to our church, only had to wait until the end of the 6,000 era. They would get theirs before the last 1,000 years started.

     We were taught that all evil in the world is expressly permitted and allowed by God, except by his obedient followers. Again, confusion. Suppose a woman was raped. Rape was evil. However, in spite of rape being evil, I was told by one person that God wanted a woman to be raped, because he allowed it. This was not said by the church. I have to stress that. I understand how he came to that conclusion. It's a natural conclusion considering what the church teaches. But I have to say, the church does not condone that extension of that logic, even though that is where it leads. The one who said it to me was not clergy and by the way, having said what he said, he never got a second date with me either.

     I remember once we were told that all humans are evil and that without God, we can't do anything right. This minister even went so far as to say that we don't even know how to chew food or walk properly because God isn't helping us physically put one foot in front of another.

     We were taught to stay separate from all people who did not attend the same church.

     We were taught to not take or ask advice from any person who did not attend the same church.

     At one time, the church dictated what businesses a business owner could run and what products or services they could offer. This changed many years ago.

     At one time, the church dictated where a family could live or move to. This too changed many years ago.

     Membership is based not on attendance or belief, but on baptism into this particular church. No matter how long you attend, no matter how much you believe, you're not a member unless you've been baptized by one of the church ministers. It's important to note that baptism that takes place in another church is not considered valid. They mandate a second baptism by their ministers in order to gain membership.

     We were taught to stay away from family members who strongly disagreed with us about our attendance in the church.

     Divorces were common with those whose spouses were not in the church. They were the only ones allowed to remarry without being disfellowshiped. It was viewed as the marriage was not seen as valid by God if the spouse was not willing to accept the church. We were taught, after all, that our church was God's only true church.

     Often, when things went wrong in our lives, we were met with criticism that we may have done something against God that he would allow this thing to happen to us. It doesn't come directly from the clergy in sermons, but if you ever had cause to ask for anointing, for healing from some illness, they do include that in their prayer to God for healing, that he forgive whatever you did that caused him to bring this curse down on you. I ran into this when I asked for my daughter to be anointed for her deformed ankle. They prayed to God that I would be forgiven for my sins that brought this on my daughter. It was reiterated by some friends once when we were talking about this healing years later. They tried to convince me that God had punished me for having a child without being married. The fact that I had been prescribed medication notorious for birth defects did not factor in.

     The church never told anyone who TO marry, but they often incurred punishment for marrying someone they said a member could not marry. If they refused to perform a wedding, and the member married their spouse somewhere else or through the justice of the peace or judge, wherever, their attendance would be suspended for several months. The same held true if they married without asking permission from a minister.

     The church, as an organization, did not dispense punishments to the unbaptized, although parents certainly did. Since the unbaptized were not genuinely seen as members, they had no status as saved. They taught that only the baptized could get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Sinning while not being baptized did not threaten your status. There was nothing they could take away that would instill fear of losing salvation. All they could do was make you feel like less than dirt. But, they all did anyway, with or without membership or salvation.

     We were taught that men, specifically husbands, were put in families to be a woman's and their children's God. No, I am not kidding. If only. I remember the sermon where they said children were supposed to worship their human father and a wife was supposed to worship her husband. Not all the ministers believed this, but a minister who wanted to stay a minister had to keep his mouth shut on things he didn't agree with. Additionally, if a female of any age does something the church sees as inappropriate, and this female has a husband or father in the congregation, the ministry never deals directly with her, only with her husband or father. The same holds true for minor boys. They expect the woman or child to be "put back in line" by either their husband or father.

     Members can only date or marry members. Non-baptized can only date or marry non-baptized.

     They were very harsh on the subject of showing respect for the church. It was seen as showing respect for God. To this end, it was not allowed to get up and walk out of a church service. If you disagree, you have to sit there and keep quiet, no matter what. Their insistence of this policy was reflected by another policy: locking the doors at the start of services. It is not physically possible to leave. Sure, there are bathrooms, but these are monitored by personnel who go in them to push people out and back into the main hall.

     Physical punishment of children is high on their list of important things to do. They strongly discourage any form of teaching children reason or logic. It's always "Do it because I say so." Parents who followed this teaching often were subject to being caught by outsiders and turned in to the authorities. To stem the tide of their members ending up in jail or court, they had sermons about locations to go to in order to punish a child so you wouldn't accidentally be seen punishing your child by outsiders. Most halls also didn't have phones. My time attending this church was before cell phones. I remember once when I was at a convention they held. The hall was a public auditorium that was rented for the occasion so there were no outsiders. I had to use the bathroom at some point during the service. I walked into the bathroom and some woman was beating a child inside one of the stalls. I couldn't see her or the child, only their legs beneath the stall door, but I could hear the slaps of skin against skin. It's an unmistakable sound. You can't miss it. It's a distinct sound. It was already going on when I walked in. It was still going on when I walked out. I was in there for a long time horrified at the length of time this was going on. The child never made a sound. Not one. The bathroom monitor came in and made me leave. I don't know what she chose to do, but I know it did not involve the police. There were phones in that auditorium, it was a public place, but the phones were monitored just as the bathrooms were. The police couldn't have come in anyway. The doors were bolted. An usher reminded me to return to my seat. It was a huge place and the bathrooms were hidden from sight from the vantage point of the seating. I would have loved to turn that mother in, but I don't know who she was. Sometimes I wonder where that child is today.

     We were taught that it is a sin for a man to have long hair. While the bible doesn't define the length of what constitutes "too long for a man," the church had no problem coming up with an answer. By the same token, it is considered a sin for a woman to have short hair. Again, bible - no definition of too short. Again, church - no problem finding an answer.

     We were taught that it was always a sin to stand against anything ruled by any declared authority. If a government such as the federal government, a state, a county, a city, a village, etc. decided to rule on an issue, it was law and unchallengeable. No matter what the law regarded, our only option was to pray about it. Any action taken in opposition to any ruling was demonized. As a matter of fact, they had a word for it. Often we would see demonstrators calling for action on the news whether it was for union rights, gay rights, or workers rights or any other thing which people somewhere were demanding. Demonstrations were called by this church 'demon-strations,' demonstrators were called 'demon-strators.' All opposition was considered rebellion and we were taught that all rebellion was anti-God. What's funny to note is that in California, and I can't remember the exact year, the California States Attorney responded to allegations by former members of the church that the church was misappropriating funds donated by members. The State of California raided the offices of the headquarters located in California and took over the headquarters and the associated California college campus. The hall where church services were held was locked and bolted. Members could not enter to hold church services. On Saturdays during this take-over by the State of California, members rebelled at the urging of the leadership, and held services on the lawn in front of the locked hall. Additionally, the State of California appointed a receiver to confiscate the books and income of the church during this time. The leadership of the church first sent word through their ministers to have all members stop sending their tithes to the headquarters and instead give the tithes to the ministers who then deposited the money to a different bank account in Arizona, and secondly, the leadership moved to Arizona until the takeover by California was abandoned. The State of California eventually decided they could find nothing amiss in the books of the church. When there was no more income arriving through the mail and the current church bank accounts in California were drained, California abandoned it's claim against the church. Then the leaders returned to California and the campus reopened. Funny how they forgot to call it demon-strating when they wanted events to go their way!

     We were taught that women were never supposed to rule over men. They were adamantly against the ERA movement. They had a little slogan for this. They insisted that instead of referring to ERA as the Equal Rights Amendment, they called it "Eve Ruled Adam." This of course, was seen as a sin. No woman was ever supposed to have a say in anything, not even in raising her children or the state of her health, and God forbid she should have separate finances or her own bank account. Fortunately, not all couples saw the sense in this. Many wives did, but not all.

     We had buzzwords for everything. So many of our common phrases were distilled into nicknames and initials. I've heard whole conversations where a full half of the conversation was just speaking initials. Some of these buzzwords and phrases were definitely contrived to put new twists on meanings so that members would not stray from what the church was teaching. Some, I think, were used because some of the things we said were just too long to continually pronounce the whole phrase. They may have also been an element of keeping outsiders from knowing what we were saying or meaning by the words we used. They often took words and changed, or tried to change, the meanings of those words with the congregation. Case in point: condescend. In the English language the word condescend means to descend to a lower point and take someone else down with you. What that means is that you act meaner, grosser, more insulting than someone else and then aggravate them or intimidate them until they lose their cool and join you at that lower level of behavior or attitude. In our jargon, they tried to get us to believe that it meant something positive. They told us in sermons that to condescend was to lower yourself to another person's comprehension level and talk to them in terms they can understand. Their logic, therefore, was that if someone accused us of being condescending, it was to be taken as a compliment. We could be as condescending as we wanted to be and could not comprehend that we were being told we were being offensive.

     This is by no means an exhaustive full list. Just writing what I remember that immediately came to mind.

     I was astounded when I read the list of tactics shown as those used for brainwashing. While I realize that not everything I've recounted would count as the tactics listed, it was overwhelming for me.

     I have wondered why people would choose to give themselves over like this. I can easily understand the children who grow up in it. It's all they know. It's their only point of reference. They have nothing to compare it to and they generally can't accept any other way because everything else has elements they have labeled as sin.

     But the adults, I have wondered. I can only conclude that most of them are injured and hurting. The promises held out to them by the church, by any church, that God will love them more, protect them more, provide more, save their lives, provide salvation, give them higher status in his kingdom, can be a powerful beacon to those who feel small, worthless, fearful, anxious and generally feel they've lost control over their lives, their families, their living situations and their futures. They weren't forced to hand over their lives, they chose to. It doesn't help their situation, or their mental health, by convincing them of all the atrocities the church says will happen in the end times, or that these times are only within a couple years away.

     There are members who sold their homes, their cars, and everything they own, and gave it all to the church believing the end would come in 1976. The church did prophesy the end would come in that year. These members had their families living in chicken coups believing they wouldn't be living that way for more than a few months. 1976 came and 1976 went - without the end the the world. The church changed the date to another year, and when that year came and went, again without happening, they changed the date again. Finally, they quit prophesying an actual year. But they still maintain the warning. It's just around the corner. They have conditioned their members to just walk away from everything; their homes, their jobs, their spouses, their children, if ever they get that phone call "It's time to go." I remember a conversation between a couple mothers expressing fear that they wouldn't be home when the phone call comes. I heard some expressing fear that they might not find the strength to walk away from their toddlers if the call came because they knew their spouses who weren't in the church wouldn't allow the children to be taken.

     The promise of God loving you more than anyone else is a powerful lure for someone who feels a sense of hatred aimed at them and has internalized that hatred for themselves. The hope is always there that if you can love yourself as much as God loves you for your obedience, maybe there's a chance you'll stop feeling that disgust you feel for yourself.

     The promise of God giving a more important crown and position of authority is a magnet for someone who feels abused by someone else. It raises the attitude "That will teach them for treating me that way. I'll end up being boss over them." I wouldn't say they feel this way consciously, but at some level, I believe it's there.

     They are taught that all sense of self is sin. All they have to do is eliminate the self in order to gain God's love. The problem with this logic is that if there is no self - in a psychological way, emotionally they don't exist. From a standpoint of logic, if there is no self, there is no one for God to love.

     The constant teaching that everything is wrong with you promotes the continuance of that self-hatred. No one ever heals from this as long as they keep taking it in like a sponge. It becomes impossible to like yourself.

     The bad behaviors they do, they know are wrong, but can't seem to stop because that self-hatred drives them.

     Satan is always the culprit that springs to their minds.

     Another thing I should mention is that those attending could not choose to just attend at their own choice. By that I mean they had to get an invitation personally from a minister to attend. The location of a congregation was held secret. The only congregations whose locations were not secret were the headquarters and the colleges they operated. The organization wanted to make sure all members were already in a mindset of total obedience before extending such an invitation. There was no such thing as an open door. And if you were disfellowshiped, for any reason, there were monitors at the door to make sure a disfellowshiped person could not get in.

     A few years before I quit, the founder of the church died and named his successor on his deathbed. When the successor took over, he made a lot of sweeping changes, in church policy, structure, finances, theology, and many other areas. Then he died and named his son his successor. His son made even more sweeping changes. Make-up was no longer forbidden. Medical help was no longer frowned upon. Divorce became no longer their business. Who people choose to marry became the sole domain of those who want to get married, although a minister can demand premarital counseling involving himself or another minister and they can refuse to perform the ceremony themselves if they believe the couple is not suitable or not ready for that commitment. Holidays that had formerly been taboo were now not only acceptable, but celebrations of them began being held in the halls run by the ministers. The format of services changed. What used to be all silence from the audience with only those behind the pulpit speaking turned to the audience now chanting back and chiming in.

In addition, there was now an open door policy. Anyone can attend. I'm not sure but I think they now publish their addresses.

The church used to demand a tithe of all earnings from the membership. Under the new leadership, this was no longer demanded. Of course, that meant less was being given from the members and finances almost completely dried up. Colleges were closed. Ministers that couldn't handle the sudden theology changes quit. Some started up their own splinter churches to maintain the old rules. Often, they took their entire congregation with them. Ministers staying had to be retrained, re-indoctrinated and relocated.

     This was too much for many. They thought they had found some sense of control when they found this group. Suddenly, services and beliefs seemed out of control.

     I believe they needed that control, because they couldn't feel they could control their own lives.

     There are now a multitude of splinter groups, each with their own definition of what they think the rules should be. Some of them are worse than the original.

     Incidentally, the biggest reason most people quit was the acceptance of Christmas, Easter and Halloween celebrations, although the other changes didn't rank far behind.

     The rules needed to be changed. Most of the changes were for the better. But I've had enough. I feel uncomfortable there. It's not so much how they've changed, but rather the fact that no matter what changes they make, there's still always that expectation of conformity. Change or no change in what they teach or how they manage themselves, I'm done. I decided I don't need them. God does not need someone standing between us interpreting for him. If there's something he wants me to know, to do, to believe, he knows where I am and how to get through. I'm right here. He's big enough, strong enough and mature enough to find me. He made me. He knows how my mind works. He knows what gets my attention. And he's not mute.

     And moreover, I know where to find him. He's always "next to the phone" waiting for my call.