Customize

"The History of Credibility Attacks Against Former Cult Members" - Professor Stephen A. Kent

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

    As presented at May's "Systematic abuse in cults: testimonies and evidence" conference in Warsaw.

    http://griess.st1.at/gsk/fecris/warsaw/Kent EN.pdf

    17 April 2011

    • Like Like x 8
  2. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  3. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  4. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  5. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  6. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  7. Orson Member

    Worth reading.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. RightOn Member

    thank you OP!
    will read it tomorrow morning with ma cereal :)
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    Awesome posts, OP! Thank you!

    This kinda stuff goes into my digital diary!
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Herro Member

    Kent does good work.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Why thank you.
    [IMG]
  12. Anonymous Member

    I knew Smurf used to be OSA but didn't know it was for so long before I read this.
  13. timthephoto Member

    so TL;DR =

    • abducting culties & "deprogramming" them doesn't really work
    • some "former members" turn out to liars (or even spies)
    • the clams loved one paper that said "never trust an ex"
    • former members are tho only source of dox - so we have to check their stories out
    • it's not fair to impose on recent ex's and thrust them into the spotlight if they're not ready
    how did i do?
  14. Anonymous Member

    you never connected with an "cultie" so you get 2 points.
  15. Smurf Member

    Steve Kent is entitled to his opinions... to say that ex-cult members involved in deception during their time in the cult eliminates their credibility after they leave it is horseshit. Many of the ex-Scilons that Kent worked with & befriended over the years, which he considered credible, engaged in deception while they were active in the cult.

    How does one spell "hypocrite" in Canada?
  16. Anonymous Member

    Probably sounds like edjucated
  17. Herro Member

    Did you read any of the paper? He never said that all ex cult members cannot be trusted. He merely shows that, due to several reasons, you have to be cautious when dealing with ex cult members.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    Inorite.
  19. Smurf Member

    I speak for myself... "Largely because of Scarff’s years of deception, however, his credibility was nonexistent, so no one could or did act upon the allegations that he made."

    If what Kent is saying is true, how come the cult expended alot of time, effort & money to (unsuccessfully) prevent my sworn deposition in the COS vs. Fishman-Geertz case, why the cult went before federal judge & had the deposition record sealed from public view (claiming I revealed confidential internal documents of a "sacred nature"), in addition to other events where OSA were bent on shutting me down permanently. If my credibility was "non-existent," the cult would not have bothered to take the recourse that they did.

    He has said as much about other ex-Scilons. Kent is a hypocrite.
  20. Herro Member

    Smurf, you still get people on this site that don't trust you because of all the time you spent in OSA. Years after the fact and with no evidence to support it, people still don't trust you. I'd say that using you as an example of the lack of credibility some ex cult members have is spot on. You have to remember that credibility is always in the eye of the beholder. It's not just about whether or not you're telling the truth, it's also about whether or not others think you can be trusted. Kent obviously trusted you and what you had to say- that doesn't mean that you had any credibility with other people. You really need to read this article again. You have completley misunderstood the key arguments.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. Anonymous Member

    omg herro makes an actual contribution to the thread
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Smurf Member

    LOL. You have zero credibility, Herro. You're one to opine.
  23. Herro Member

    Seriously smurf, read the paper again. You really are having a hard time grasping this. Let me try and explain what you qouted at least. I was pointing out that there's some people that still don't trust you because of your past. They have no reason to distrust you, but because of the stigma of your past and who you were, they don't trust you. Others may find you to be not credible because of your past. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do today on some level- you're still going to carry that stigma. Is it fair? No, but that's just how things work.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    Who doesn't trust Smurf?
  25. Smurf Member

    I don't trust him, that's for sure. He's OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA, OSA...
  26. Anonymous Member

  27. Anonymous Member

    ^^^^^^OSA
  28. Random guy Member

    Seriously Smurf, he uses you as an example of people that the "general researcher" (i.e. cult apologist) will not trust. He does not write that you are untrustworthy. The tl;dr of the whole paper is that the academic reluctance to accept testimonies from former members is unscientific, but that exit stories needs to be checked.

    In other words, dox or GTFO, a healty attitude if I may say so.

    For what it's worth, I consider you a trustworthy and invaluable source, with your intimate knowledge of the inns and outs of the cult.
    • Like Like x 5
  29. Smurf Member

    OK. I'll shut up now. :)
  30. cfanon Member

    Seeing as no WWP thread can stay completely ontopic: Smurf, why do you look like such a badass pimp in the poster, for your new movie, that I saw this morning?>
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    As far as this thread goes, Smurf and Marty and Mike have exactly the same credibility.
    None.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Are you are saying that you think that all ex's can't be trusted? Or just this three people?
    Larry Brennan is ex OG, and what about Mike OTVIII, Will, Adhocrat and others exs?
    You don't trust them either?
  33. cfanon Member

    Meh, no issue with exs here, apart from those who still believe in LRH teachings. The freezoners I've met weird me out.
    (sidenote: I wasn't the one whoposted anon that you asked the question to, just thought I'd add my opinion)
  34. From an academic (and likely a legal) perspective, a source who has made contradictory statements on the record is problematic.

    Mike and Marty (and to an extent Smurf) were essentially official Scientology liars. This doesn't make things they are saying now inherently untrue but it makes an argument that relies solely on their statements extremely vulnerable to attack.

    Many other people who were Scientologists -- even senior ones like Larry -- don't have the same baggage in terms of documented statements that can be used to attack their credibility.

    On a personal level, things are entirely different. If someone is talking about their past because they need to get it off their chest and they don't appear to be motivated by a specific agenda I would generally find them personally credible. If they dole out confessions in a manner that appears more self-serving it's harder to assume that they are now telling the truth.
    • Like Like x 2
  35. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Interesting.
  36. cfanon Member

    Do you ever have anything interesting to say? All I ever see if you putting few word answers, flirting with herro or copypastaing peoples profile stats

    inb4 copypasta my profile stats
    • Like Like x 1
  37. AnonLover Member

    uhhh no. Unlike the MR's, smurf has either depositions or affidavits (i forget which) on the record with full truth revealed, and he came clean on "his crimes" as well as put forth the details behind the way in which he was blackmailed to do what he did which is further supported by the cult's documented policies of disconnection and PTS/SP tech.

    Smurf - dont take Kent's paper to heart, from an academic perspective you actually look good here because Kent DID use you as an example (in contrast to the apologist stand - which this paper is a very deft backhanded blow to... BRAVO Prof KENT! Suck on this James R Lewis).

    Also important to remember Smurf is that a truly talented expert always has an objective professional opinion that is on an entirely different/separate spectrum from whatever his personal opinion may be. And in Kent's case, his history of works makes it all too clear his personal opinion is not that of an apologist.

    But unfortunately, a researcher's objective views tends to cut more than that of a journalist/writer because they approach case study profiles from a purely clinical perspective. Thus its not his personal opinion of you being expressed, its a clinical analysis of how your life experiences fit a profile. (IOW, in a clinical setting - your not a person, your a profile.)

    So it's all good buddy... from an objective stance, i see this as Kent using you as a shining example of his findings & conclusions. And if anything, you now have a greater level of respectability in turns of educated-public perception... so those who still beat that "OSA OSA OSA" drum from here on out are proactively choosing to show their own short-sighted limitations in education/perspective and their inability for separating their personal opinions when forming an educated opinion (which in and of itself, deprecates the value of any academic opinion they may put forth in the future).

    EDIT: tl;dr (hugs) it's all good... fk the lil minded people who see you differently.
    • Like Like x 6
  38. AnonLover Member

    the bibliography on this makes my humble cultic studies bookshelf feel so unloved & neglected... good grief, there's stuff on here > 15yrs old I havent seen/heard of before.

    brb - growing my amazon.com wishlist
  39. Anonymous Member

    AnonLover has clearly expressed most of my understanding of Kent's paper.

    Kent points out that Lewis poisoned the well of academic research.

    S'all good, Smurf! I didn't get any impression that your credibility was damaged or maligned by Kent in his paper.

    What was damaged is the integrity of Lewis, and appropriately so as he is made to appear to lack a robust integrity!
    • Like Like x 2
  40. DeathHamster Member

    I don't know why he would have any integrity. He's had a lot of mucky dealings with cults in the past, and some of his "studies" have been self-published by his own little important-sounding vanity press.

    Association of World Academics for Religious Education (AWARE) Center for Academic Publication (self-pub) Academic Publishing. In cooperation with the Family, interfered with the publication of a study by Dr. Kent, as well as other papers. With help from Jossi, edited his own Wikipedia article (as "ProfLewis"). AWARE co-founded by Church Universal and Triumphant. (contractual agreement??)
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins