Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 71
We could continue for a long time with quotes and examples of lectures or programs of
various kinds where such statements were made.
The position of these Italian scholars is also shared by other Italian and foreign scholars.
This is a current in sociology and psychology that opposes a different view of the problem,
upheld by other scholars who do not deny the existence of forms of conditioning in certain
religious movements, although in different degrees and with different features, depending
on the individual case.
What makes the reader or the listener immediately inclined to accept the opinion of the
―expert‖ is the mention of the prestigious APA. It is natural to think that, if such an
important association expressed a negative opinion on a theory, this theory cannot be
scientific and must be rejected.
However, common sense and experience in this field led us to harbor some doubts about
such absolute certainties. In a field as complex and controversial as that of psychology,
acquiring certainties is truly difficult. For this reason, we wondered whether the famous
official APA document actually said what it was supposed to have said.
We therefore started a long and difficult search for a document that, considering its
importance, should have been easily available to everybody, especially to those who quote
it on their own Web site. We asked CESNUR (which claims to have a library of over 10.000
books) for a copy of the document. Inexplicably, they referred us to their American
colleague, Gordon Melton. Dr. Melton, whom we repeatedly contacted by e-mail, never sent
the document, although he said he had it and was ready to fax it to us. (1)
We then decided to go to the source, and contacted  by e-mail  several members of APA
(including Department Chiefs), asking for a copy of the document. We were very surprised
that none of these people were able to place this document, so important for deciding the
fate of a scientific theory. We were told that the document exists but is not easy to find.
Thanks to the admirable help of members and officers of this Association, we received a
considerable quantity of bibliography on the issue of ―mind control‖ applied to New Religious
Movements.
This help, together with that of Dr. Michael Langone of AFF and Dr. Benjamin Zablocki (a
Rutgers University sociologist who published an article in Nova Religio 
www.novareligio.com  ―The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the
Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion‖) helped us to increase our knowledge
and to clear up many issues which had been left in the dark.
After two months of research on the Internet, we were finally able to obtain a photocopy of
the document by fax from the USA. (The document is on our Web site at
www.grisroma.it/inglese/Memo_11-05-87.htm.) We can now clarify some basic points:
The document opens and closes thanking the Task Force (DIMPAC  Task Force on
Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control) for its job, and openly expresses
the enormous difficulty involved in coming to a final report on such a complex and
controversial issue. No polemics against those who had done the job, rather the
acknowledgement of the job they had done, which the Board, while not agreeing, did
appreciate.
The report drawn up by DIMPAC was examined by two outside experts and by two members
of the APA committee called Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology
(BSERP). They found the DIMPAC report lacking in scientific rigor and in an impartial critical
approach needed to obtain APA approval. The report was therefore unanimously rejected by
4 people (only 2 of whom belonged to APA).

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 72
The main point of the document is this: the Memorandum expresses no official rejection of
mind control theories, but only rejects a report drawn up buy a committee on the issue of
mental manipulation theories as applied to New Religious Movements. This rejection was
due to a lack of proper methods.
The memo called on DIMPAC members to avoid stating that APA shared the conclusions of
their report.
The most important part of the memo, which is the part that interests us, says:
Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have
sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.
The CESNUR Web site now includes a copy of the complete memo. However, the scholars
we mentioned seem to have forgotten about this sentence of the memo, which is certainly
not a secondary one. Yet this sentence, which does exist, does not appear in any of the
documents we quoted.
Indeed, Dr. Langone told us (Personal Communication) that in a deposition he was once
handed a copy of the memo that did not have the last paragraph. It apparently had been
eliminated through the photocopy process. (Being a member of the Task Force, Dr.
Langone had received an original copy of the memo, which had the missing paragraph.)
This therefore is the truth, and it is quite different from what we were told: APA, a
professional Association of great domestic and international importance, has never taken a
clear and official stand on theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New
Religious Movements. It has taken a waiting stand. The reason is clearly stated in the
memo: sufficient scientifically validated research and hypotheses are lacking, so a final
answer cannot be given to this question.
The saddest part of this story is that APA quite properly asked ―mind control‖ theorists not
to say that the Association shared their opinions. However they did not then realize that
that small memo, that relatively unimportant note, could be manipulated by others and
presented as an official APA rejection of the existence of mental manipulation in New
Religious Movements. The latter have made of this note a flag to rally around, quoting only
part of a document, which  although of only relative importance  deserves to be quoted
in full. Anybody who is considered, and considers himself, an objective and acknowledged
expert in this field should be aware of this fact.
An Examination of the Relevant Documents
In case there are any doubts, let us examine this issue in more detail.
In an article, ―Liar! Liar!,‖ (published on the CESNUR Web site at
www.cesnur.org/gandow_eng.htm) Massimo Introvigne says:
In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became
controversial figures for their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases
against new religious movements, during which they presented their anti-cult
theories of brainwashing, mind control, or ―coercive persuasion‖ as if they
were generally accepted concepts within the scientific community. In the
meantime, in 1983, the American Psychological Association (APA) had
accepted the proposal to form a task force called DIMPAC (Deceptive and
Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control).
This statement could lead one to think that the Task Force called DIMPAC was set up as a
sort of ―commission of enquiry‖ on certain ―controversial‖ psychologists and psychiatrists.