How apologists treat ex-members -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:10:05 03/28/05 Mon
Author: Mike K.
Subject: How apologists treat ex-members
In reply to: Chris 's message, "Re: Cult Apologist Lobby" on 14:07:00 03/25/05 Fri

Let me quote how the known cult apologist Gordon Melton treats testimonies of ex-members:

JUDGE SEYRANIAN: I don�t know exactly how you did your investigation. It would seem to me to be a difficult task, not being a member of the church where you are day to day, week to week, year to year, where you would know for yourself because you have been a member. And you are given this task to try and interpret a book and decide whether it is valid or not valid. Your job was a difficult one; I appreciate that.

But on the other hand, just briefly from what I have heard, some of the things that Mr. Duddy is relying on are some dissidents who left the church and apparently are dissatisfied.

In your investigation did you also check with these people to see whether these are in fact true dissidents that have a gripe for some reason, or maybe there are two sides to every story? Like in a dissolution you hear the husband�s side of the dissolution, and you can�t see how he could live with her until you talk to the wife, and you find out that maybe he was equally at fault.

DR. MELTON: No, I did not have a chance to meet personally with ex-members.

MR. MORGAN: Let me ask you this. Is there some basic rule, though, in the field of religion about reliance upon ex-members?

DR. MELTON: When you are investigating groups such as this, you never rely upon the unverified testimony of ex-members.

MR. MORGAN: Why?

DR. MELTON: To put it bluntly, hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth. They invariably blow out of proportion minor incidents and turn them into major incidents, and over a period of time their testimony almost always changes because each time they tell it they get the feedback of acceptance or rejection from those to whom they tell it, and hence it will be developed and merged into a different world view that they are adopting.

With that, Melton justified that he'd never even bothered dealing with ANY ex-members AT ALL when drawing his conclusions about the group!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]