Customer Reviews

Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I like this book a great deal; we used it in a grad. seminar in my Ph.D. work. The book is very well researched, and the author takes great pains to understand the nature of the religious groups he discusses. He reveals that too often a standard stereotype of cults has prevented the FBI and other "cult watching" groups from correctly understanding and resolving conflicts that arise in cults. My only criticism is that at times, the author is a little too fair to the cults. It is hard for him to condemn even the most destructive behavior, and it gives the book a preachy tone, as though his readers are all bigots in need of sensitivity training toward cultists. This book is leagues better, however, than your standard "anti-cult" books, though, and I can't really think of anything like it on the topic. Highly recommended.

Religious tolerance remains a key challenge today. Some contend that we are in a remarkable and unprecedented era of new "cults" and "heterodoxy". Jenkins' work is a timely and highly entertaining reminder that the American religious landscape has always been filled with new faiths dismissed in their time as deviant. In particular, Jenkins shows that in some instances the very religious movements that were once denounced as new faiths produce the leaders who in turn denounce the faiths that come after them. I found the work anecdotal and interesting, the kind of book one flips through back and forth rather than necessarily treating as a "novel-style" linear text.

One might imagine that a work with Jenkins' theme would run a severe risk of being either a polemic or a dreary dissertation-like tome. Mystics and Messiahs evades both risks. Jenkins' writing style is highly readable, and his tone is not that of a pedantic, but of a sympathetic skeptic telling a bit of interesting popular history. The book is well documented, but there is no loss of a good read in pursuit of an "academically-refined text".

America's pulsating religious need in our time is the need for tolerance (as the song says, "what's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"). Jenkins' book illustrates the lessons from our history that past Americans' intolerance has caused us to learn, without interfering with the fact that the story of America's many faiths is a darned entertaining read.

It is refreshing to see a level-headed book which is neither "XYZ Evangelist's Book of Cults" or "What Christians Fail to Get about our Wonderful New JLK Faiths". Instead, in the Dragnet parlance, it's more "just the facts", and whether one is a fervent believer or a casual skeptic, this one is a worthwhile read.

Philip Jenkins is one of America's best historians of religion, and also a frequent contributor to Chronicles magazine. In this work, Jenkins shows us that concern over "cults" goes back to the 1800's and that many of the allegations raised about modern cults (sex abuse, etc.) were also made about groups in the past (which as Jenkins states, doesn't mean that this is never found in certain fringe groups).

Prof. Jenkins makes all sorts of interesting observations in this history of fringe groups, such as that some practices like women ministers and speaking in tongues were once considered far-out but are now considered mainstream. (Just look at the sorry state of "evangelical" Christianity in the U.S.) But the best part of this book is that it is just good history: lots of interesting facts and colorful characters.

The book is good scholarship in that it presents a myriad of facts about a myriad of organizations and movements. However, it is also extremely bad scholarship in that the author is unable to make sense of his own research. The extensive facts become a cluttered maze, a complex puzzle the author is unable to fit together. The book is a good historical reference, but otherwise an a-theoretical work that offers little insight. The author would do well to reach out and read the work of others who apply a more analytical perspective to similar material. I am not trying to be insulting, but he seems to have no comprehension of the history he reports.

Remember the 80's and early 90's when the threat of roving satanist gangs was high? Remember all of the hype over what was made out to be this massive satanic network? Remember how it all turned out to be bunk? Well, Dr. Jenkins sets out to show how the majority of cult scares are simply just that, overhyped paranoia run wild. Jenkins starts around the turn of the century from the 19th to the 20th and runs up til 2000.

The book was academic and proved to be a good survey of cult movements and the anti-cult movements. I do wish the book was more thorough in outlining the various cults different beliefs.

The section on the Nation of Islam was very eye opening. Dr. Jenkins sheds a lot of light on the racial and gender factors that go into cult scares.

Good book.

Jenkins is a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State.

Interesting book. Good book to scan rather than read cover to cover. The first issue for the author was trying to define the word "cult". He points out many established religious groups of today were considered cults (or at the very least were victims of violence) at one time such as the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Science, Quakers and Baptists.

Groups

He covers almost every conceivable group. Many I had heard of (Theosophy, the KKK, Voodoo, Cannibalism, Zombies, Witchcraft and Black Muslims, Scientology, Satanism, Wicca and Neopaganism) some I even studied their teachings or attended services (such as Unity, Religious Science, Christian Science, New Age, New Thought, Spiritualism, Rosicrucian) and many I never had heard of.

The author mentions one case about black Muslims. When they were sometimes sent to jail, they would ask for a copy of the Koran. The guards said, "That's what we put you in prison for, read the Bible instead".

People

One common aspect of all groups was the need to have a leader. He writes about leaders such as Edgar Cayce and Charles Manson. Several leaders claimed themselves as god incarnate, such as Father Divine (whose followers believed he was god). He writes about Harry Houdini, who attempted to debunk séances and mediums. Arthur Bell claimed it was American planes bombed Pearl Harbor. He was arrested for providing false information about the US war effort. Charles Coughlin, a popular Catholic priest, (the Glenn Beck of the day) had a radio program. He was anti-Semitic and pro-German. Roosevelt wanted to silence him without alienating Catholic voters.

Women leaders included Mary Baker Eddy and Sister Aimee Semple McPherson. One of the female leaders said, "The next Messiah maybe a woman. Perhaps she has already been born".

In 1656 Quaker James Nayler staged an entry into the city of Bristol, England mounted on a donkey, while faithful women followers threw branches in his path and cried "Hosanna to the son of David". He said he was reenacting the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. He denied he was Christ, but did feel the Christ within.

According to this author, former Vice President and Presidential candidate Henry Wallace referred to Nicholas Roerich as his personal guru. Roerich was involved in occult practices. However, when checking with Wikipedia, there is no reference to Roerich being involved in the occult. There is one reference to Roerich being involved in Theosophy and yoga. The same reference acknowledges Wallace's connection.

Actions

Author writes about groups and their unusual practices such as "speaking in tongues" a strange language unknown to linguists usually followed by someone who interprets what was said. Other ideas or concepts include "We are all divine". Some practiced nudism. Other groups felt aliens from UFO's provided them with new spiritual knowledge. Handling of snakes was also discussed in the book.

The author writes about discrimination faced by many, who followed a different path and goes in depth about harassment of Catholics.

Many groups incorporated God as both male and female. Christian Science and Shakers. The author also says Mormonism. David Koresh prayed to God the Father and Mother. Christian feminist groups praying to Sophia.

JW believe government is of the devil and that is the reason for not saluting the flag or voting.

One group dismissed monogamy as "idolatrous love".

Between 1864 and 1974, conservative Christians made several attempts to amend the US Constitution to state very clearly this country is a Christian nation.

Another concept was "There is no separation between your soul and the soul of the universe. In the deepest sense, you are the great universal soul. Man is God incarnate." Ralph Waldo Trine.

The press had a large impact on shaping the validity of many of these groups. With religious bodies, which attracted African Americans, the press would print words as they were pronounced such as "faith'll make it well ag'in", but would not use the same procedure with the way many whites in different parts of the nation spoke, such as when Roosevelt said there was nothing to fear, but "feah itself."

Overall interesting book. Very comprehensive.

This is a good example of much of what secular academia is about: well researched, scholarly history of cult activity in our country, but supposedly without an edge towards any spiritual interest.

This is the deception: the slant is definitely towards defending the "supposed cults/sects" especially against the Evangelist, Christian group who continue to attack without proper, academically acceptable rhyme or reason.

Due to this, the author's extreme bias in interpreting the history is scewed. However, this remains nonetheless a valuable source for searching out this movement, which as noted in this work accelerated with all the happenings in the 70-90's.

OK, I was obliged to buy this book because I am a victim of the University textbook industry.

What this book really is, is a history of cults/ new religious movements in America.

It is not a stand-alone piece of literature that deserves literary merit. In fact it is rather poorly written.

My take on the publication of this book is that Universities and colleges need some type of textbook they can sell students. The end result is a text which gives superficial treatment, hopping from subject to subject. To get an in depth examination of any specific group mentioned in the text, one is better to consult Wikipedia.

It is very poorly written. The most hilarious treatment in the book is how he includes Freemasonry in his meanderings. He never once stops to define the group as a cult or explore the significance of the Fraternity. The reader is left wondering "OK, what am I supposed to make of Freemasonry now? cult/ new religious movement/ occult..ahhhh".

Further, the same treatment is given to such mentions like Rosicrucians, Blavatsky, Crowley...Branch Davidians etc.

It reminds me of the saying "a jack of all trades, is a jack of nothing". That pretty much describes the value of this book. You only get a superficial historical treatment of cults, but really you learn nothing at all.

Don't be a victim of the university textbook industry like me.

McMaster University, you should be ahsamed for selling this to students!

If I wrote an essay like this, I would receive a failing grade... no thesis , no insight....and yet that is what this textbook is.

jumps from subject to subject..

subjective historical account of North American Cult history.

this book should be burned for its idiocy!