INTRODUCTION
Prior
to his death in 1973, Mark Prophet, self-proclaimed prophet and
messenger of God, made a startling announcement to his staff, of
which I was a part. Mark had founded the Summit Lighthouse in 1958.
From its "What is The Summit Lighthouse?" brochure, it was promoted
as "a unique non-denominational religious and philosophical
organization," not as a traditional church. Yet Mark stated to us
the world would be practicing "Summitry" for the next thousand
years.
It wasn't until 1974, when for dubious reasons, the
Summit Lighthouse became known as Church Universal and Triumphant.
This was instituted by Mark's successor and widow, Elizabeth Clare
Prophet. She too, was a self-proclaimed prophet and messenger of
God. It was only then that the organization identified itself as a
church. And it was soon thereafter that Mark's dream of his
organization becoming a world religion became a stated
objective.
To accomplish the goal of Church Universal and
Triumphant placing itself alongside Christianity and Judaism, CUT
focused its energies on the building of its church congregation, or
"community." Even though it abandoned its mission of establishing
its "Community of the Holy Spirit" in Montana in the mid-1990's, it
did not, and has not, abandoned its efforts to become the next world
religion.
Since Elizabeth Clare Prophet became mentally
incapacitated in 1999, the leadership of Church Universal and
Triumphant has fallen into the hands of her subordinates. But since
the church's major preparations for nuclear catastrophe (which
failed to materialize) in 1990 cast doubt on Elizabeth's prophecy
and messengership, CUT has fallen on hard times. Members have left
in great number. And they have taken their financial support of the
Church with them.
Today, Church Universal and Triumphant
finds itself in the precarious position of maintaining its very
survival, let alone prospering and growing into a dominant faith.
It's present leadership is attempting to re-define itself as well as
re-define its mission. Expanding its church community has been
replaced with the less responsible and more economical mission of
making its spiritual sponsors, the so-called "Ascended Masters" a
household name. But in its present undertaking, CUT finds itself
having to confront the questionable past of its founders, Mark and
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and if their Ascended Masters even exist.
The true history of Church Universal and Triumphant and its leaders,
until recently unknown to its faithful membership, is now being
brought to light. The Farce Revealed - Church Universal and
Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective, is but one revelation into its
clouded past.
THE FARCE REVEALED
Clearly, there
are two academic perspectives regarding Church Universal and
Triumphant. On one hand is the school of thought which looks upon
CUT as a destructive cult. For example, the American Family
Foundation (AFF) serves as a forum for these scholars, which include
Dr. Margaret Singer and Dr. Stephen Kent. I have read Dr. Singer and
spoken with Dr. Kent. Because of my 22-year experience in CUT, I am
impressed with the depth of their understanding of the cult issue. I
have come to support their views. These people tend to possess the
common sense and insight to see something that is wrong. More
importantly, they have the courage to say it.
On the other
hand is the school of thought which looks upon CUT as a legitimate,
though non-traditional, new religion. For example, the Association
of World Academics for Religious Education (AWARE) serves as a forum
for these scholars, which include
J. Gordon Melton, Dr.
James Lewis,
his wife Eve Oliver, professor Rob Balch, and Stephan Langdon. The
latter were all participants in the AWARE study of CUT in July,
1993. This led to their 1994 publication, CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND
TRIUMPHANT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE (Lewis and Melton, editors). I
have read the book and talked with James Lewis, read Rob Balch and
talked with him at great length, and talked with Stephan Langdon at
length. Because of my 22-year experience in CUT, I am astonished at
their lack of understanding of the cult issue. But more so, I am
appalled at the shoddy scientific methods which lead to not only the
publication of CUT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE, but its endorsement by
a large segment of academia. (I also spoke at length with Larry J.
Halford, Ph.D. of Washburn University. His support of Lewis and
Melton and their book was conclusive. It was as if every revelation '
I brought up to refute their study went in one ear and out the
other.) I have little to no support for their perspective. These
people tend to lack the common sense and insight to see something
that is wrong. My impression is their collective motto is see no
evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.
My involvement with
the farce began in the summer of 1993. A good friend of mine who was
a Church Universal and Triumphant staff member told at least one
member of the AWARE investigative team to get in touch with me. I
was a critic of the Church, had been a 22-year member, and had been
a staff member for 14 years. Since my friend was assured the study
of CUT was intent on being objective, it would seem the scholars
should be interested in an alternative view from someone who was
close to the Church for so long. My friend was puzzled when I told
him I was contacted by no one. By late summer 1994, CUT IN SCHOLARLY
PERSPECTIVE was published. It was about the same time John
Pietrangelo's LAMBS TO SLAUGHTER came out. Here in Livingston, MT,
John's book became quite controversial and was the subject of
several letters to the editor in the Livingston Enterprise. My
letter in support of John's book was met with ridicule by some CUT
members. I was criticized as being bitter and ignorant, while CUT IN
SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE was being waved in my face as the real truth.
It would not be the last time the book was waved in the faces of CUT
critics. Ever since CUT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE was published, it
has been used as a propaganda tool by CUT leaders and members to
qualify themselves as a mainstream religion. It is basically an
endorsement of CUT by the AWARE academics who conducted the study on
the church at its 4th of July conference in 1993. Its conclusion
states CUT is a harmless, legitimate new religion that has been
unjustly subjected to criticism and persecution. But for those who
know better, it is a whitewash of the Church by so-called impartial
scholars who themselves became unwitting victims of the cult's
subtle seduction. For myself, it was very discouraging to read the
book when it first appeared. The introduction by James Lewis was
such a gushing tribute to CUT, yet so insightful, I was convinced
that Murray Steinman, CUT spokesman and public relations director,
was its author. The overall attitude of the book was that
allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Church were the
exaggerated grumbling of a misinformed, narrow-minded media, and
disgruntled former members with an ax to grind. Since former members
held no credibility with Lewis and Melton, the two went ahead and
published their investigation without seeking and including their
input. As for the inclusion of other academics who had a differing
perspective than their own, they too, were left out. Consider the
following:
AWARE
Association of World Academics for Religious
Education
160 North Fairview Ave, Suite D282
Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 968-1677
March 4, 1993
Prof. Monty L.
Lynn
Dept. of Management Sciences
Abilene Christian
University
Dear Prof. Lynn:
It has recently been
brought to my attention that the Spring 1993 volume of the
INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL FOR RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF
RELIGION will contain an article by Stephen Kent, "The Lustful God:
A Psycho-Sexual Historical Study of the Children of God's leader,
David Berg." There are many points on which his research is
questionable. I have, for example, been informed that Prof. Kent
relied heavily on information obtained from hostile former members
of The Family (A.K.A. the Children of God) for this paper. Research
on former members of controversial religious groups (e.g., my
"Apostates and the Legitimation of Repression," Sociological
Analysis, Winter 1989) has, however, demonstrated that such limited
subsamples are non-representative, which calls into question the
objectivity of his entire study.
Stephen Kent's contact with
current members was minimal, except to obtain certain out-of-state
publications, as well as highly-sensitive, internal documents, which
the leadership generously provided. Family members with whom I am in
contact feel that Prof. Kent was not completely honest regarding his
intended use of these documents.
Finally, I am personally
concerned that, "The Lustful God repeats popular stereotypes,"
stereotypes that serve to reinforce rather than to diffuse fear and
prejudice with regard to non-traditional religious groups. As
academics attempting to provide objective information to the general
public, we should be particularly sensitive to this issue,
especially considering the hysteria presently being whipped up by
the mass media in the wake of the Branch Davidian
incident.
Because Prof. Kent may have violated professional
ethics as well as proper sampling methods, the controversy that
could emerge following the appearance of his paper would reflect
poorly on the good reputation of your publication. For these
reasons, I advise that "The Lustful God" be withdrawn, at least from
the current year's annual. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James R.
Lewis
Ph.D. Director
Regarding the self-professed credibility and ethics of James
Lewis, consider the following also:
LOS ANGELES
TIMES
May 6, 1995 (excerpts)
Alleged Persecution of Cult Investigated Japan: U.S.
activists visit Tokyo. They're concerned about treatment of sect
suspected in subway attack. (Teresa Watanabe, Times staff
writer)
Tokyo - Four California activists are investigating
charges of religious persecution against Aum Supreme Truth, the sect
suspected in a poison gas attack against subway riders here in
March.
In an interview Friday, Los Angeles lawyer Barry
Fisher (chairman, American Bar Assn. subcommittee on religious
freedom) said he and the others decided to visit after hearing that
authorities had conducted mass arrests of Supreme Truth
members,
He was accompanied by two Santa Barbarans - J.
Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American
Religions, and James R. Lewis, director of the Assn. Of World
Academics for Religious Education - and Thomas Banigan of Anver
Bioscience Design Inc. in Sierra Madre.
Melton said he
contacted Supreme Truth's New York office after news reports raised
questions about possible persecution.
Supreme Truth agreed to
pay the group's plane fare and expenses - but no other fees
THE WASHINGTON POST
May 9, 1995 (excerpts)
U.S. Visitors Boost Cause of Japanese Cult Lawyer Says
Police Imperil Religious Rights of Sect (T.R. Reid, Washington
Post Foreign Services)
Tokyo - One of the U.S. visitors,
James Lewis, told a hostile and clearly disbelieving roomful of
Japanese reporters gathered at an Aum office today that the cult
could not have produced the rare poison gas, sarin, used in both
mass murder cases (March 20, 1995, 12 dead - 1994, 7 dead). Lewis
said the American group determined this from photos and documents
provided from Aum.
The Americans said they were invited to
Japan by the cult after expressing concern to Aum's New York branch
about religious freedom here. They said their air fare, hotel bills,
and "basic expenses" were paid by the cult, but neither Aum nor the
Americans would say how much money was involved.
What kind of scientific objectivity was employed in CUT IN
SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE? As far as I was concerned, if anything or
anybody was misinformed and prejudiced, it was this book and its
authors. These people didn't have a clue what was really going on
beneath the surface in CUT, nor what a pack of useful idiots they
were for the Church. But what could anyone do to confront their bad
science? In the winter of 1995, a friend called. She was an
excommunicated member of CUT, and not afraid to speak her mind. She
told me she had become friendly with Eve Oliver, and that both Eve
and her husband James Lewis had a falling out with CUT. Eve had
become aware of abuses in the Church with the help of our mutual
friend. I got the phone number of James Lewis and called him. I gave
him an earful about the real CUT. He told me he was put out with CUT
because of some contractual obligation the Church was not
fulfilling. He felt he had been taken for a ride and was going to
get back at the Church. He told me he was planning on returning to
Corwin Springs to research book two of his study, but would in fact
be getting information to expose the Church. I kept all of this to
myself and a few close friends of like mind. I looked forward to
James Lewis' expose. But over the next year or so, it never
materialized. At least I and my friends had the consolation of
telling others that one of the authors of CUT IN SCHOLARLY
PERSPECTIVE knew the church was a fraud. Still, I was miffed that
Lewis never publicly repudiated his original work. In time, I would
learn that not only was there no honor among thieves, but certain
academics as well. In the summer of 1995, I was contacted by another
participant in the AWARE study, Rob Balch, a professor of sociology
at the University of Montana. He came to Livingston and interviewed
me. He also told me he was not pleased with the AWARE study and its
result, CUT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE. He told me he would be writing
a paper to be published exposing the study as flawed and biased. As
a critic of CUT, I told him I would help him in whatever way I
could. We thus began an association that would last until his paper
was published. Forthwith is a copy of his first draft the following
summer.
HOW NOT TO DISCOVER MALFEASANCE IN NEW
RELIGIONS
An Examination of the AWARE Study of the Church
Universal and Triumphant*
Robert W. Balch
Stephan
Langdon
Department of Sociology
University of
Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
August, 1996
[...]
Our involvement in the
AWARE study was the first time we had seen how other scholars do
research on new religions. It was a disconcerting experience. The
overriding problem was the study's lack of objectivity, which
permeated every aspect of the data collection process. For the most
part, the scholars turned a blind eye to the controversies
surrounding the Church because the real intent of the study was not
to investigate, but to exonerate.
Our purpose is not to
slander the Church by implying the existence of abuses for which we
have no hard evidence. As we stated in our introduction to this
paper, our personal experiences with the Church have been thoroughly
positive, and we must add that even if abuses have occurred, we have
no reason to suppose they are any more common or serious than the
abuses that occur in institutionalized religions. Nor is it our
intent to malign anyone who was involved in the AWARE
project.
Instead we want to point out the lessons to be
learned from the study. Even when allegations of malfeasance fly in
the face of conventional academic wisdom, they need to be
investigated thoroughly and objectively. The need for objective
research should be paramount, even when it is obvious that the group
being studied is being persecuted by the mass media and anti-cult
organizations. Researchers should not take members' claims at face
value, but rather they should develop innovative strategies for
digging into the inner life of the organization to discover if the
charges can be substantiated. Researchers need to pay attention to
Goffman's insights about back-stage life and the teamwork used to
conceal it from outsiders. In the case of collaborative studies,
investigators should agree beforehand on steps to encourage the free
expression of findings and opinions, so that potentially fruitful
avenues of investigation are opened instead of
closed.
Unfortunately, the AWARE investigation closed more
doors than it opened. As a result, The Church Universal and
Triumphant, far from becoming one of the most thoroughly studied new
religions, remains as much of an enigma as ever.
Response to Rob Balch from Peter Arnone after reading above
paper:
August 27, 1996
Dear Rob,
Having waded
through the one-sided nonsense of CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND TRIUMPHANT IN
SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE, and having the book waved in my face as the
unbiased and definitive authority on the Church, I very much
appreciate your paper HOW NOT TO DISCOVER MALFEASANCE IN NEW
RELIGIONS.
You made a couple of points I'd like to comment
on:
#1 "the Church provides a viable spiritual path for its
members." The problem I have with this statement is that if and when
individuals pursue the spiritual path of Church Universal and
Triumphant to its culmination in "the white fire core," they will
most likely be hurt.
#2 As the AWARE researchers themselves
fell into the trap of "groupthink," make no mistake, CUT is an
entire institution overcome by the malady.
Will Jim Lewis get
a copy of your paper? What do you think his reaction will be? His
support of Aum Supreme Truth and CUT, and academia's support of
Lewis, cause me, and I'm sure others, to question the credibility of
academia itself.
What is the next step for your paper? Will
it be published? CUT continues to use the AWARE book for public
relations leverage. And its members use it as leverage with their
families and friends to justify their excessive involvement with the
Church in the face of so much accusation and contradiction. I would
like to see your work in the hands of more people, including the
media, to level the playing field.
I look forward to speaking
with you again.
Sincerely,
Peter
p.s. Kathy Schmook
is out of town. When she returns I will give her a copy of your
paper. I will also ask her if I can give you her phone no. and
address. I would really like to see the two of you get together. I
know your paper will move her as I'm quite certain you will
appreciate what she has to offer.
Rob Balch response to Peter Arnone letter
above:
August 28, 1996
Dear Peter,
Thanks for
your comments on our paper. It will appear in Wolves Within the
Fold, an anthology edited by Anson Shupe, a sociologist at
Indiana/Purdue University in Ft. Wayne. Andy is a past president of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and author of many
books about new religions, including a major study of the Moonies.
Ironically, Andy is one of those who testified against CAN (Cult
Awareness Network) in the trial that sunk the group. He is generally
a cult apologist and one of those who distrusts apostate
testimonies. Yet he's pretty enthusiastic about our paper. The
audience for the book will be pretty limited - mainly academic
sociologists.
As for getting the paper into the hands of more
people, some of that may happen even before the book is published, A
couple days ago I got a call from Gordon Melton, who runs the
Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbara, and
who was a member of the AWARE study team. He thought the paper was,
for the most part, "right on," as he put it. He liked it so much
that he plans to distribute copies to participants at a special
session on research methods at this fall's meeting of the
Association for the Sociology of Religion. Gordon said most of the
participants at last year's session were graduate students and new
PhDs in sociology and religious studies, and he expects a similar
group this year. (Gordon went to Japan with Jim Lewis to study the
Aum group, but told me that he was embarrassed by Jim's public
statements he clearly wants to distance himself from
Lewis.)
More on the notion of getting a wider readership for
the paper, tonight I got a call from Tom Robbins, another
sociologist who has written extensively about new religions. He also
liked the paper, but one of his concerns was that it will be used by
people in the anti-cult movement to discredit all sociological
research on so-called cults. I think he had a good point because a
lot of sociological studies have been very good, and a lot of the
anti-cult studies have been very bad. I plan to include a sentence
or two about that. As I think I said in my last letter, Stephan and
I are not CAN supporters, and we don't want to convey the impression
that we are. Our concern is not to discredit unconventional
religions, but to promote thorough, objective research. I think
every group probably has its skeletons in the closet. The Catholic
Church certainly does, but I still think it's a "viable" path for
lots of people.
As far as getting the paper into the hands of
media people, I'm pretty leery. I'm not a political person, and I
prefer to keep a low profile. I don't want to be portrayed as a CUT
antagonist, because I'm not, and neither is Stephan. Stephan has a
cousin and an aunt who are in the Church, and he thinks the Church
is working well for them. But once the paper is out on the land, we
can't control what's done with it. If interviewed by any reporters,
however, I will make it clear that I am not a CAN sympathizer and
that I do not support incidents like the Laverne Collins
deprogramming attempt. I'd be happy to talk more about this the next
time I see you there are fundamental philosophical issues here about
free will, social influence, victimization, religious freedom,
caveat emptor, etc.
As for groupthink,,,, I would not be at
all surprised that it's pervasive in CUT. I used the groupthink
model in the first couple papers I wrote about the Love Family. But
I think it's important to note that the concept was not developed
from observing cults, but from studies of government decision
making. The classic case of groupthink, described in detail by
Janis, was JFK's inner circle of advisors which hatched the abortive
Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1962. For me, the fact that
groupthink was at work in Kennedy's inner circle can't be taken as a
blanket discreditation of everything in the Kennedy
administration.
But back to the paper. I sent Murray
(Steinman) a copy and he seems pretty upset about it. He called Andy
Shupe and wants to write a rejoinder, which is fine with Stephan and
me. He also made several calls to Gordon Melton. When Stephan and I
talked with him, he characterized the rebuttal he wants to write as
a "friendly rejoinder." He said our paper would not jeopardize our
relationship with the Church I can still bring students to visit. He
was friendly but frankly, he's clearly concerned and taking the
paper very seriously. He flat-out denied any knowledge of the
incident where the Church minister had her confession letters read
publicly. I got most of this information from Louise J. What do you
know about the incident?
So that's where things stand now.
Yes, I'd like to talk with Kathy again. So would Stephan. He's
planning on spending 2-3 weeks in Montana this fall and wants to
begin interviewing ex-members.
Take care,
Rob
Washington Times
March 1997 ( vol. IV, no. 14)
following the Heaven's Gate debacle (excerpt):
The deadly
effects of the group's beliefs caught major cult watchers by
surprise. The only academic in the country who had studied them
(Heavens Gate), University of Montana sociologist Rob Balch, was
inundated by media requests. After infiltrating the group, he told
the Chicago Tribune in 1994 the cult was not dangerous. "It is not
in the mold of the Charles Manson family, Jim Jones' People's Temple
or David Koresh's Branch Davidians," Mr. Balch told the newspaper.
"It does not have a violent history."
In
1997 Peter Arnone received the following message on his answering
machine from Eve Lewis, a director and member of the AWARE team, and
wife of Dr. James Lewis, co-author of CUT IN SCHOLARLY
PERSPECTIVE:
Peter,
My name is Evelyn Oliver. I was
the person who came out with James Lewis on the AWARE study. And I'm
calling you back. I think we talked (not so, P.A.) some time ago
when I wanted to get the rest of the study done on ex-members, and
all of the horrible things that were happening. And you sent us some
information. And I had called Rob Balch to go out there. I'm the
person who put together that meeting two days before the study was
over and found out all these horrible things that were hidden. And
I'm trying to get people to write me things even though they didn't
put their name down to protect their privacy. But at least to write
it in writing, so that my report of it wasn't gossip or hearsay.
People didn't do that, so I went ahead and sent Rob Balch out there,
and he took information last March and promised to get everything
back to them as far as what, you know, his report and mail them
things. And he never did. And in the meantime, I was relying on him
to follow through on the ex-members and the horror stories that were
going on. It was impossible to get ex-member information at the time
of the initial study. Also, in the wake of Waco happening, everybody
was under pressure at that time, you know, to be sure that the
Church wasn't doing horrific activities for which they needed to be
raided. And we just did an overall view. We are preparing the rest
of the study for Syracuse University, and when I went to Rob to get
the information, he has not put this together but instead, he's
putting together a slander to us for our AWARE study. And I don't
know where he's coming from. But he did not put together any of the
gory details, and instead is trying to slander us, his own
colleagues. And I mean it's just outrageous. And I would like to
talk to you about some input or about whatever information that you
have so that we can add it into the Syracuse study. Obviously we, in
É (end of first message) Hi, sorry to keep going on like this but to
finish up is that, the problem obviously in retrospect is that, as
we look back, Rob perhaps feels that we've stepped on his toes by
coming in his territory where he's devoted a lot of time, and years,
looking at CUT. And we come in and do a study, and this is why we
did include him in the study. And, it's just become a nightmare
because of it. I mean, he didn't print up any of these things that
his associate had done. I mean, I called him and I said you know,
you're right. There is malfeasance going on here. Let's flesh it
out. Let's investigate it all. And I mean this is a hell of a way to
respond to our, you know, good intentions and good investigative
work. I'm not a scholar. I used to be an investigator with law
enforcement. And so I'm pretty ticked off at this. And I do want to
get the full story and all of the details, and all of your good
work, not to just go down the drain. I mean there's things that need
to be put together here. I understand now that the Church has
changed. It has done some positive things. That's important to know.
But at the time I reported this to them they were not interested in
doing anything about it. And that's why I went forward with Rob to
flesh it out so people would be validated, vindicated, and the
painful things would stop. So, if you would be so kind, give me a
return call at my office *****, my fax number *****, and we'll call
you back so it doesn't have to be on your nickel. But I would like
to hear from you. Thank you. Bye.
January, 2000
Looking back, I did not return Eve
Lewis's call. By then, I was fed up with every one of the
intellectual morons from the AWARE study. It appeared the truth was
secondary to their egos and stature among their peers. What I
witnessed was half-baked effort. No one had the courage to make
waves, even Rob Balch. None of them had, or was willing to roll up
their sleeves and penetrate and expose Church Universal and
Triumphant for what it really was. Rob Balch eventually published
his paper. It was re-edited and so watered down that after reading
it, I threw it out. I had heard he was under threat of being sued by
James Lewis and Eve Oliver. And there is speculation Lewis settled
out of court with CUT over terms of his original contractual
agreement. Lastly, CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND TRIUMPHANT IN SCHOLARLY
PERSPECTIVE has itself become an indictment against CUT. Community,
portrayed in the book as the present and future of CUT has been
abandoned by the Church. Comparing the CUT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE
fantasy account of the Church of only a few years ago with the
reality of its present decaying condition makes a powerful
statement: Church Universal and Triumphant is a fraud and a
failure.
From the Livingston Enterprise
December 27, 1999
Caption: Paolinis Did Their
Homework
Editor:
It has been roughly two weeks
since the Enterprise published its headline article announcing
Kenneth and Talita Paolini's new book, "400 Years of Imaginary
Friends." As the article pointed out, much of the book focuses on
the questionable history of Church Universal and Triumphant. Not
surprising, there have been only a few minor objections to the
article and book voiced in the Letters to the Editor. What is very
surprising however, is that no official comment from the CUT
leadership has been forthcoming. The silence emanating from Corwin
Springs has been deafening. It appears it is CUT's best defense
against the exposure of the truth.
The Enterprise article
caught CUT spokesman Chris Kelley with his foot in his mouth one
more time. Without reading "400 Years of Imaginary Friends," he
criticized the academic credibility of the book. Apparently Chris
has a preference for members of academia like those who produced his
favorite volume in 1994, "Church Universal and Triumphant in
Scholarly Perspective." The authors and editors of that CUT
whitewash were professor James Lewis and Dr. Gordon Melton. As
reported in the Los Angeles Times (May 6, 1995) and Washington Post
(May 9, 1995), the same Lewis and Melton were flown to Japan by the
Aum Supreme Truth group to defend their cult and leader Soko Asahara
after the saran gas attack in the Tokyo subway. The outspoken Lewis
used Aum's own documentation to defend them before all evidence was
presented. He looked like a fool when the truth was made
known.
Similarly, Lewis and Melton spoke up for CUT and
against its critics without all evidence being presented there. They
went ahead and published their book with most input provided by CUT.
There was no reference to CUT critics, including former members or
even fellow academics with an alternative view. Today, the Lewis
& Melton investigative team looks like a pack of fools. Prof.
Rob Balch, a participant in the study from the University of
Montana, admits their research of CUT was flawed and biased. Since
the early 1980's, the Livingston area has witnessed the rise and
fall of Church Universal and Triumphant. Like David and Goliath,
pebbles of well-placed truth have brought down the high and the
mighty. Today, CUT barely maintains a heartbeat with only a small
fraction of its former supporters remaining. During its recent
October conference, treasurer Sydney Bennett admitted that without
operating funds from the sale of thousands of acres of its Royal
Teton Ranch, CUT would have been forced to "close its doors." The
CUT leadership yet refuses to answer the embarrassing questions why
they find themselves in this predicament. In spite of CUT surviving
on its land, the coup de grace may have now been applied by the
Paolini book, "400 Years of Imaginary Friends." The aforementioned
"academics" failed to do their homework. The Paolini's have not.
Those who think it is an assault on the CUT religion should read the
book before passing further judgment. They may well discover that
CUT has not been a religion at all. But in fact, a clever con game
merely posing as a religion, spawned by its delusional
founders.
Peter Arnone
Livingston
Addendum - January 7, 2000
A friend forwarded the above
paper to Gordon Melton yesterday. She asked him, "Care to rebut?"
Melton’s reply:
Care to rebut? Not really. There is not a lot
to rebut. I do not believe that brainwashing exists and I doubt that
Arnone has anything new to bring to the brainwashing table. He hates
CUT, I could care less. He has made no substantive critique of the
study, actually he has said nothing about the study that indicates
he has even read it. I gather that he is upset with the fact that we
did not denounce CUT but resented our findings in rather mundane
fashion. He complains of methodological flaws, but does not point
them out. I can only assume that he doesn’t know what he is talking
about.
The simple fact is that we did the study, as
preliminary as it was. It will stand until someone is able to do a
more thorough study and offer any refutations that they might
have.
Gordon
Mister Melton remains naïve. I would go so far as to say he
is defensive, out of his own insecurity.
Mr. Melton has never
spoken with me. He has never heard my story, yet judges me hateful.
My paper, THE FARCE REVEALED, was not intended to be a critique of
the AWARE study. Contained therein, Rob Balch provided the critique.
And according to Balch: "He (Melton) thought the paper (Balch’s
critique) was, for the most part, "right on," as he put it. He liked
it so much that he plans to distribute copies…,"
Was I upset
the AWARE study did not "denounce" CUT? I was upset, as Rob Balch
explained, the study was undertaken with haste. I was upset, as Rob
Balch explained, the study was flawed and biased. I was upset, as
Rob Balch explained, CUT was exonerated. I was upset because Melton,
and his sidekick Lewis, went ahead and published a book that is a
misrepresentation. Yet Mr. Melton’s attitude is the study will
stand.
As I stated in my paper, I read CUT IN SCHOLARLY
PERSPECTIVE. If Melton read my paper, it went in one ear and out the
other. I suggest he re-think his position on "brainwashing." In
addition, if he can get over his own prejudice, he should read the
Paolini book, 400 YEARS OF IMAGINARY FRIENDS. He might actually
learn something.
