Wolf in shepherd's clothing (Erin)

Being born in Northwest Arkansas, and Catholic, I've heard of Alamo all my life. Him and his wife were sort-of part-Jim Jones and part P.T. Barnum. Well sort-of, it's all kinds of weird and I don't know what stories to believe.

it also touches on a different problem, which is that when people define Christianity any way they like, the door is opened for truly vile people to claim that they are only doing what the Lord wants them to do, and to manipulate, as Tony Alamo is alleged to have done, parents into handing over their very young daughters to be the leader's "brides."

What is the proposed remedy here? Who does the vetting? How do we determine what is a cult and what is a legitimate religious practice?

This statement is problematic on a number of different levels.

For the record, I'm not defending pedophilia here, merely religious liberty. Erin, you're falling into the trap that this bastard's lawyers have laid: they're trying to turn it into a debate about religion, when it's really a question of behavior.

The Roman Catholic Church's scandals should have taught us, by now, the danger of letting pedophiles cloak themselves in religion in order to have access to children.

Pedophiles will do whatever is necessary to gain access to children in any event. If not through a church, then they'll volunteer to coach little league. Or become a teacher. Or work nights in a children's hospital. Or at an amusement park.

The best solution for parents is to use your common sense and keep your wits about you. I guarantee that these girls' parents at some point had that little voice go off inside them telling them that this was wrong, but they chose to ignore it.

Or maybe he's just a nutcase. This is the same guy who kept his dead wife's corpse on display for 6 months while waiting for her to 'resurrect'.

There is only one way to cut this Gordian. "When Authority speaks, it is lying."

Never believe what you are told, especially if the person telling you is a clergyman. (I was going to say "and a blogger" but I may start my own blog.) That is the safe way to deal the matter.

"How do we determine what is a cult and what is a legitimate religious practice?" Geoff G.

TR: There are proposed methods and check-lists. Like

1. The leader claims to have a special authority that is not to be questioned or discussed.

2. All members are expected to limit or end contact to non-members, including relatives. In extreme cases by relocating to an isolated commune. (Alamo used to have a compound, even in the nineteenth century Popes would occasionally meet with non-believers as would Catholics)

3. The group considers themselves to be at war with a force trying to destroy them. (Alamo's Vatican conspiracies, Scientology's weird obsession with the American Psychiatric Association)

4. The group has "unequal ethics." Non-members can be cheated, tricked, lied to, or destroyed if it'll benefit the group.

5. (The only one important from the vantage point of government) The group and its leadership openly encourages criminal violence or destruction.

"As an Orthodox-inquirer, I'm really taken aback at Rod and Erin's suggestions that the submission to a spiritual father or adviser is generally a danger to be avoided." Kirk

TR: I think they mean in extreme cases where the authority becomes totalitarian. Although in Rod's case he may mean more as he strikes me as still being a bit more "disillusioned ex-Catholic" than current Orthodoxer.

Surely there are evil leaders who would draw their flocks into oblivion, but the alternative, as far as I can see, is for each person to become their own authority; their own pope.

There is a middle ground. In fact, there are probably lots of different ways of resolving this. Here's just one example.

In my own community (Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers) we don't have any ordained authority figures. Decisions by the Meeting are made by consensus, via a process that involves a lot of talk, a lot of prayer, and a lot of silence. When individual members of the Meeting need spiritual guidance, they will ask for a "clearness committee", a voluntary group of Friends who meet with them to help them consider whatever it is.

For example, a couple meets with a clearness committee before the Meeting agrees to approve their marriage. Likewise someone who feels they have a divinely inspired leading to quit their job and volunteer for some good cause would ask for a clearness committee to help them discern whether they're really following God's will or whether they're just doing it for reasons of egotism or whatever.

In general, having to explain yourself to a bunch of other (often "weighty") Friends has a tendency to focus the mind. The system somewhat keeps people from getting too caught up in fads or obsessions or whatever. It's a system that's worked pretty well for American Quakers for the past three centuries.