First, thank you for the apology which I accept as sincere. Let's hope your action does not have any further serious consequences.

I wrote earlier:-

The difference between a cult member and a person with religious beliefs is that a cult member usually has a cult leader. The cult leader directs the beliefs of the cult member. The cult member is incapable of questioning the cult leader, so the cult member accepts and rationalises any changes.

Does this answer the question you asked John?

and you replied:-

No because that is just theory. I was trying to get an explanation of how that felt/works from the inside, from a person who had gone through the changes.

Tom, my response wasn't just theory. I left the cult in 1999 after 25 year of believing in Maharaji. I went through all the changes, many of which I welcomed, and all of which I accepted because I trusted Maharaji. Yes, I missed community satsang, but also recognised that premies had all sorts of off the wall beliefs that I agreed would deter new people. Once, Maharaji said that he had always been saying the same thing, and I had a twinge of doubt and listened to an old tape. I must have found one that was fairly mild as it reassured me that he had always been saying the same thing, so it must have been the people around him that obscured his message. I was a little surprised at the Rejoice program in 1987 about changing the techniques (particularly that constant meditation was no longer required), and I can't quite remember how I reconciled this with the commandment 'Constantly meditate and remember Holy Name', but I somehow managed it because I trusted Maharaji. Regarding your comment about why we weren't growing spiritually, well I felt I was (albeit slowly and in relation to the effort I was making) but I couldn't speak for other people.

So, for me, the theory is well backed up with experience.

But your definition is also faulty because cult members do question and reject the cult leader. In the case of Elan Vital the great majority of members have done just that as you and I did at different times.

No, because when cult members question the cult leader, they invariably reject him, and are no longer cult members. My explanation is for those who do not question the cult leader, as I didn't for many years.

As I left before there were substantial changes in the cult doctrine I was trying to get a personal explanation from someone who had lived through those very changes over 30 years. Having the question answered was not a major part of my life, I only had to write a few emails.

I hope my experience helps you to understand, and I appreciate it's not a major part of your life.

Most religious people follow dead leaders as interpreted by historical associations and current leaders who have the power to interpret that doctrine.

For mainstream religions the doctrine changes very slowly if at all, and I would say that most people with a religious belief pay little notice to such changes anyway.

Prem Rawat is just one of many people in his situation, he inherited his position at a very early age before he showed he was capable of doing the job well which is why he had done so poorly but apart from having a live leader I see very little difference between the actual experiences of people from many religious groups including those wiht live leaders such as EV and those without.

And I contend there is a major difference which I have tried to explain. I also contend that difference plays a major part in how you deal with your wife's cult membership. If she was a Catholic and you had leaked documents exposing financial mismanagement at her local church, I do not think for a moment you would have signed a false affidavit to avoid her knowing about what you had done.

Do you?