This is an evaluation scale that the government uses to monitor the activities of different orginizations around the country. They consider a group, a religion when they have over 1,000 members. After a group or orgininzation reaches this status, it is legally recognized as a cult.
Recently the internet group, Joy of Satan was put under review, and this is a description of thier methods of review. This was posted on the JOS site recently, and it caught my attention, and made me think that the government is able to track any group and it's activities.
This is the form:
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(Version 2.6)
Copyright © 1979, 2001, 2004 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
Introduction:
Events in the last several decades have clearly indicated just how
dangerous some religious and secular groups (usually called "cults"
by those opposed to them) can be to their own members as well as to
anyone else whom they can influence. "Brainwashing," beatings, child
abuse, rapes, murders, mass suicides, military drilling and
gunrunning, meddling in civil governments, international terrorism,
and other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of
many groups, and in far too many cases those accusations have been
correct. None of this has been very surprising to historians of
religion or to other scholars of what are usually labled "new"
religions (no matter how old they may be in their cultures of
origin). Minority groups, especially religious ones, are often
accused of crimes by members of the current majority. In many ways,
for example, the "Mormons" were the "Moonies" of the 19th century â??
at least in terms of being an unusual minority belief system that
many found "shocking" at the time â?? and the members of the
Unification Church could be just as "respectable" a hundred years
from now as the Latter Day Saints are today.
Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical warnings
that could be issued, ordinary people faced with friends or loved
ones joining an "unusual" group, or perhaps contemplating joining
one themselves, need a relatively simple way to evaluate just how
dangerous or harmless a given group is liable to be, without either
subjecting themselves to its power or judging it solely on
theological or ideological grounds (the usual method used by anti-
cult groups).
In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call
the "Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" or
the "ABCDEF" (because evaluating these groups should be elementary).
A copy was included in that year's revised edition of my book, Real
Magic. I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be
effectively used to separate harmless groups from the merely unusual-
to-the-observer ones. Feedback from those attempting to use the
system has always been appreciated. Indirect feedback, in terms of
the number of places on and off the Net this ABCDEF has shown up,
has been mostly favorable. For example, it was chosen by and is now
displayed on the website of the Institute for Social Inventions, who
paraphrased it for their "Best Ideas â?? A compendium of social
innovations" listing.
The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and
professional observers, including current or would-be members, of
various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or
political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is
liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and
mental health of its members and of other people subject to its
influence. It cannot speak to the "spiritual dangers," if any, that
might be involved, for the simple reason that one person's path to
enlightenment or "salvation" is often viewed by another as a path to
ignorance or "damnation."
As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given
group (the further to the right of the scale), the more dangerous it
is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the
frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical
judgments using it, at least of the "is this group more dangerous
than that one?" sort. This is if all numerical assignments are based
on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior by the
groups and their top levels of leadership (as distinct from official
pronouncements). This means that you need to pay attention to what
the secondary and tertiary leaders are saying and doing, as much (or
more so) than the central leadership â?? after all, "plausible
deniability" is not a recent historical invention.
This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement agents,
social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual
dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different
observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending
upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each
scale. However, if the same observers use the same methods of
scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative
danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at
least for their own purposes. People who cannot, on the other hand,
view competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual
value to anyone, will find the ABCDEF annoyingly useless for
promoting their theological agendas. Worse, these members of the
Religious Reich and their fellow theocrats will find that their own
organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far
more "cult-like" than many of the minority belief systems they so
bitterly oppose.
It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF is founded upon both modern
psychological theories about mental health and personal growth, and
my many years of participant observation and historical research
into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and
anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and
authoritarianism, could (I suppose) count groups with total scores
nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As
far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, both
historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction
in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the
low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so
small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large scale
atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclinations
to do so.
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.6)
Factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power
exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined
organizational rights for members. 1 _________________________
2 External Control: Amount of external political and social
influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members'
external political and social behavior. 2 _________________________
3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility
declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural
interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable
credentials claimed. 3 _________________________
4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust
in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader
(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external
critics and/or towards verification efforts. 4
_________________________
5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal
inflexibility or "fundamentalism;" hostility towards relativism and
situationalism. 5 _________________________
6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of
proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 6
_________________________
7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names
from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 7
_________________________
8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by
group; emphasis on members' donations; economic lifestyle of leader
(s) compared to ordinary members. 8 _________________________
9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups;
amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of
sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 9
_________________________
10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment
dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric
groups. 10 _________________________
11 Censorship: Amount of control over members' access to outside
opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 11
_________________________
12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating
with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 12
_________________________
13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or
returning dropouts. 13 _________________________
14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its
doctrines or leader(s). 14 _________________________
15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies;
exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of
conspiracy theories. 15 _________________________
16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group,
its doctrines or its leader(s). 16 _________________________
17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be
responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual
disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
17 _________________________
18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group
officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the
group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the
group's declared principles for political, psychological, social,
economic, military, or other gain. 18 _________________________
A German translation of the 2.0 version of this is available at:
Isaac Bonewits' Sektengefahr Checkliste.
A French translation of the 2.6 version is available at: Grille
avancée de Bonewits pour l'évaluation du danger potentiel d'une
secte.
An Italian translation of the 2.6 version is available at: Documento
Avanzato di Isaac Bonewits per la Valutazione del Pericolo del Culto.
A Polish translation of the 2.6 version is available at:
Zaawansowany Kwestionariusz Bonewitsa Oceniajacy Niebezpieczenstwo
Sekty
Other translations will be posted as they are done.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
Copyright © 1979, 2001 c.e., Isaac Bonewits. This text file may be
freely distributed on the Net, provided that no editing is done, the
version number is retained, and everything in this notice box is
included. If you would like to be on one or more of Isaac Bonewits'
emailing lists, click here to get subscription information
That is the test that the JOS was put under, by officials. Suppossedly they keep tabs on groups that becoe cults. This quote is from the JOS site; HP Maxine Dietrich
Obviously, the Jos orginization is just the beginning and an example of what happens when satanist get together..I know. I am not too worried. The JoS Ministry is well aware of this. It is important for dedicated members to trust no one. Their number 1 tactic is to break down an organization through infiltration as Melissa Cloer tried to do. Get in, kiss ass and work their way to the top. There is one she did not even stop to think about and this was Father Satan. We do not go around making disparaging remarks or attacks upon other Satanic groups or leaders. Responsibility to the responsible.
Tactic 2 is to keep people or organizations they deem as a threat completely broke and in financial need. The problems didn't really start until I asked for donations and opened the on-line store. I thank everyone who donated as you have set us up as much more than just another on-line entity. You will see more of what I am
saying in the future. There are not too many who truly understand what Father Satan's agenda is. Satanism is not just a religion of rebellion as some seem
to think. Trillions and trillions of dollars, mass murders and more have been used to keep people from Father Satan. Think they are going to stop? People can bash me all they want to, but having studied enough from all kinds of different sources, this is another reason why the extra-terrestrial hype is ridiculed. Father Satan
definitely has an agenda and we are well aware of what it is and the JoS Ministry is working for and in accordance with his desires. Those in power know this and are very concerned about those of us who are working with the ones from "out there." There have been things that have been happening and yes, we have won. I find it so humorous just how obsessed these people are with the JoS. Certainly, they know nothing of the occult as they might pretend. Anton LaVey wrote of this sort of thing and what can be done with it. There is an old saying "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." Maxine Dietric
InJoy_of_Satan@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis"
wrote:
> > > >Hello Everyone A lot of you don't know me because I'm not a regular poster.My name is Dennis and I have been with the JOS a good while.
What I have to say here is VERRY SERIOUS. There are people who have been attemting to get information about Satanists And specifically about the JOS.WHO? CIA,FBI,Governments, (OTHER SATANIC GROUPS!!!),xians,AND OTHERS!!!.Some of them are in the JOS NOW and posting to members and through email and the various messenger systems.They are in MANY Satanic groups with different identities.I caution that these people are slick as whale
shit and you'd be surprised how well they can work.They will go so far as to meet you in person.For example.some one may ask you to Hex an ex- lover,ask you specific questions about the JOS and the JOS CLERGY.MEN-BEWARE of pretty ladies that send you photos and try to get awful close to you!! YOU MEN OUT THERE BETTER LISTEN TO ME ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID!!-How do I know this?? because I may not post often,I have been working to find this shit out. To the enemies of the JOS here's what I have to say to you:"You can't see me in the dark and HAIL SATAN!!
> > > > Dennis
This is quotes and text from the internet Yahoo group Joy of Satan. I do believe that this is true and every satanist that belongs to any type of group should be aware of such things. The internet does not give us as much anonomity as is believed, and anything is possible. The ever-present bad apple of any group is searched out and is made an example of others in the group. Simple tactics. Consider the point that since the rise of the internet, various groups have increased thier membersips and have created online communities. There has been a definate rise in satanisim and satanic propoganda in the last 10+ years. This is good, but also opens these groups to scruity under the heavh hand of our "christian government" Since the rise of satanisim it has been a popular outlet for those just getting into the occult. This also brings out the problem of satanisim in the mainstream. God forbid that the christian coalition ever lost it's grip on our human lives. True occult groups are secret because of persecution like this, and it goes on nowadays....
I am not partial to the ways of the JOS but they do stand for a large group of satanists both off and on the internet.
Venus666