CULT-PROOFING YOU KIDS
by Dr. Paul R. Martin
#4
As discussed by Occult Whistleblower, Pierre S. Freeman
CHAPTER 2 FRINGE CHURCHES

Dr. Martin begins this chapter with a quote from A. W. Tozar, “sin can thrive at the very altar of God.”  This is not hard to fathom when you think of the multitude charges of child molestation against priests, the indiscretions of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggard, the crimes of Tony Alamo, David Khoresh and Jim Jones. Then, you can go back in history to the mass murder of the Cathars, the Inquisition, the indulgences of the Church and so on. Martin, in this chapter, however, focuses on specific groups that have deviated from the traditional practices he favors and have adapted certain cultic practices.
            He catalogs five different points.  Although in no way, can these ‘fringe churches’ be compared in ideology to AMORC, I will mention how AMORC compares structurally to these characteristics. In this chapter, I show you how cults are similar even if their ideologies are practically opposite.

1. Control-oriented leadership. Definitely, AMORC has an Imperator, which counts more than the Pope, metaphysically, according to its doctrines. And this probably aces out most of Martin’s fringe groups.

2. Spiritual elitism.  Defined as “we” vs. they” mentality, the only ‘true Christians.” Actually, AMORC had disdain for so-called Christian churches, believing they had the only true understanding of the spiritual hierarchy and the true role and history of Jesus Christ.

3. Manipulation of members (environmentally and informationally).  Definitely AMORC shared this with fringe groups but this didn’t extend to all the parameters Martin mentions- like where to work or who to date. Certainly to what to read. AMORC specialized in manipulating time not place. They didn’t care about your work or friends as long as these elements didn’t interfere with your constant attention to their exercises and instructions for so-called spiritual practices.

4. Siege mentality. Yes, many cults think people are after them- and some of them are right. No one is after AMORC as much as me but I don’t see any of them hiding in a corner, trembling. So, they don’t share that characteristic with fringe churches.

5. Lifestyle rigidity. There wasn’t this overall scheduling and supervision apparent in fringe churches and other cults. But, still, AMORC wanted every extra moment of your time.

6. Emphasis on the subjective experience. Well, we never said we were “spirit-filled” or “sensed the spirit” but we did keep diaries that reflected how we reacted to a zillion exercise- more like seeing auras or projected our consciousness to different places than  speaking in tongues or getting message from God.

7. Denunciation of other churches.  Whereas the fringe churches might lament the lack of spirit in other churches, AMORC had almost total disdain for other religious institutions.

8. Suppression of Dissent. AMORC did not appreciate any kind of criticism but given their powerful mind control system, active members didn’t venture much anyway.

9. Harsh discipline of members. No, we didn’t shun members or accuse them publicly of ‘sin.” There wasn’t much opportunity to “sin” in a correspondence course, but, I suppose, you could disrupt a lodge meeting. I never saw stuff like that happen except in the case of Imperator Gary L. Stewart who lost his position in AMORC and started his own organization.

10. Painful exit process. No, you weren’t shunned as in these churches, nor did you risk losing your job. You just were afraid to death of losing any proximity to the Cosmic with all further spiritual growth stunted and losing any real opportunity in the future because of disconnection with the egregor, the group consciousness of AMORC.

            We did have a lot in common with what Dr. Martin calls fringe churches.