Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 148
nonmembers) are the only parties guilty of one-way communication. In my experience,
among the primary complaints made by families of cultists are how difficult (if not
impossible) it is to contact a loved one, and that their loved one seems capable of only one-
way communication (e.g., proselytizing). Friends report to me that the member now seems
almost incapable of truly meaningful dialog and discussion. I know one parent with a
daughter on full-time staff with Scientology who for the past five years still averages a
dozen calls before she can reach her daughter, even when calling during agreed-upon
times. Years ago the father gave his daughter a cell phone in an attempt to rectify the
matter, but it soon ―disappeared‖ (they wonder if it was appropriated by other Scientology
staff) and their daughter declined a replacement.
The authors suggest that, if we have difficulty understanding a group member‘s actions, ―it
is highly likely that you are missing information [and] the way to get that information is
through communication‖ (p. 11). O‘Meara and Koehler correctly note that groups are not
static they change, and past information may no longer be valid. In addition to talking to
the new group member, they advise talking to group leaders and visiting the group. They
advocate getting more information before taking any actions, and I strongly agree with that
advice. However, according to TCATC the best source of valid information seems to be the
group itself or the group member (that is, until the member leaves the group). Lastly, they
note that ―getting information directly from the group does not preclude you from obtaining
information from other sources‖ (p. 23).
But what are these ―other sources?‖ Meeting group members socially, talking with a college
ombudsman, discussing your concerns with a clergyman, and visiting the group‘s Internet
website are among the ―other sources‖ listed. So are professors of religion, history, and
sociology (but not psychology!). The authors also recommend visiting ―independent‖
websites, generalizing that those sponsored by universities and interfaith organizations,
―and ones which clearly state the authors of the information‖ are good examples. By this
standard, the current CAN website does not seem to be a good example. As of July 22,
2004, it listed the authors of articles listed under ―Articles/Papers,‖ but not all the authors of
articles that appear under the category ―Into Infamy.‖
Prominent among ―other sources‖ not recommended by O‘Meara and Koehler are former
members. Apparently, only current members are valid information sources. Talking with
critical ex-members is denigrated, and we are warned against taking their stories seriously:
―The vocal critics of new religious groups are frequently sour former members...[who] have
had a bad experience with one organization and have turned it into a generalized hysteria‖
(p. 54).
I imagine there would be hundreds of former members who would be deeply offended by
these comments, and those found in the subchapter, ―What About Negative Books.‖ In this
section, O‘Meara and Koehler begin with the reasonable suggestion that we ―check out the
author‘s agenda. You may have to read between the lines.‖ (In my opinion, this advice
pertains to all books on the topic of cults, including this one.) Former members who are
critics of new religions are relegated to those ―kicked out 20 years ago after failing to live up
to the moral standards of the group,‖ duplicitous people who join undercover and were
―never honest with the group,‖ and are compared to a group leader‘s ex-daughter-in-
law...[who does not report] how much money she accepted [from the group] as a cash
settlement‖ (This latter seems to refer to Nansook Hong, former daughter-in-law of Sun
Myung Moon). It seems offensive, even hateful, to treat critical former members in such a
dismissive manner.
Section 2, ―What Not to Do,‖ begins with a rule ―... carved in stone: Don‘t ever pay
someone to talk anybody out of anything.‖ More specifically, O‘Meara and Koehler
admonish readers never to pay for a deprogramming, an exit-counseling, or an intervention.
nonmembers) are the only parties guilty of one-way communication. In my experience,
among the primary complaints made by families of cultists are how difficult (if not
impossible) it is to contact a loved one, and that their loved one seems capable of only one-
way communication (e.g., proselytizing). Friends report to me that the member now seems
almost incapable of truly meaningful dialog and discussion. I know one parent with a
daughter on full-time staff with Scientology who for the past five years still averages a
dozen calls before she can reach her daughter, even when calling during agreed-upon
times. Years ago the father gave his daughter a cell phone in an attempt to rectify the
matter, but it soon ―disappeared‖ (they wonder if it was appropriated by other Scientology
staff) and their daughter declined a replacement.
The authors suggest that, if we have difficulty understanding a group member‘s actions, ―it
is highly likely that you are missing information [and] the way to get that information is
through communication‖ (p. 11). O‘Meara and Koehler correctly note that groups are not
static they change, and past information may no longer be valid. In addition to talking to
the new group member, they advise talking to group leaders and visiting the group. They
advocate getting more information before taking any actions, and I strongly agree with that
advice. However, according to TCATC the best source of valid information seems to be the
group itself or the group member (that is, until the member leaves the group). Lastly, they
note that ―getting information directly from the group does not preclude you from obtaining
information from other sources‖ (p. 23).
But what are these ―other sources?‖ Meeting group members socially, talking with a college
ombudsman, discussing your concerns with a clergyman, and visiting the group‘s Internet
website are among the ―other sources‖ listed. So are professors of religion, history, and
sociology (but not psychology!). The authors also recommend visiting ―independent‖
websites, generalizing that those sponsored by universities and interfaith organizations,
―and ones which clearly state the authors of the information‖ are good examples. By this
standard, the current CAN website does not seem to be a good example. As of July 22,
2004, it listed the authors of articles listed under ―Articles/Papers,‖ but not all the authors of
articles that appear under the category ―Into Infamy.‖
Prominent among ―other sources‖ not recommended by O‘Meara and Koehler are former
members. Apparently, only current members are valid information sources. Talking with
critical ex-members is denigrated, and we are warned against taking their stories seriously:
―The vocal critics of new religious groups are frequently sour former members...[who] have
had a bad experience with one organization and have turned it into a generalized hysteria‖
(p. 54).
I imagine there would be hundreds of former members who would be deeply offended by
these comments, and those found in the subchapter, ―What About Negative Books.‖ In this
section, O‘Meara and Koehler begin with the reasonable suggestion that we ―check out the
author‘s agenda. You may have to read between the lines.‖ (In my opinion, this advice
pertains to all books on the topic of cults, including this one.) Former members who are
critics of new religions are relegated to those ―kicked out 20 years ago after failing to live up
to the moral standards of the group,‖ duplicitous people who join undercover and were
―never honest with the group,‖ and are compared to a group leader‘s ex-daughter-in-
law...[who does not report] how much money she accepted [from the group] as a cash
settlement‖ (This latter seems to refer to Nansook Hong, former daughter-in-law of Sun
Myung Moon). It seems offensive, even hateful, to treat critical former members in such a
dismissive manner.
Section 2, ―What Not to Do,‖ begins with a rule ―... carved in stone: Don‘t ever pay
someone to talk anybody out of anything.‖ More specifically, O‘Meara and Koehler
admonish readers never to pay for a deprogramming, an exit-counseling, or an intervention.
