This section is a stub of an article. This section will look into whether the classification of Dr. Leland Jensen's teachings is correctly applied as a sect leader or a pejorative cult leader. Typically those critical of Dr. Jensen never address his doctrinal arguments but rely on tearing his teachings down through casting dispersions on his character, which may or may not be objectively true. You will typically find people branding his community as a "cult" using the common misunderstanding of the sociological technical term for "cult" which is any religious community, in it's popular understanding as coercive organization, which is typically known as a "Destructive Cult" in the technical literature. If we followed the common checklists for which Baha'i religious sects were destructive cults we would be very surprised to find Dr. Jensen and the BUPC at the low end of such checklists whereas the dominant sect would be listed significantly higher on the "destructive cult" checklist.
For Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_cult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_(book)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_cults_and_new_religious_movements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_persuasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_abuse
Random Notes:
Stuart A. Wright explores the distinction between the apostate narrative and the role of the apostate, asserting that the former follows a predictable pattern, in which the apostate utilizes a "captivity narrative" that emphasizes manipulation, entrapment and being victims of "sinister cult practices". These narratives provide a rationale for a "hostage-rescue" motif, in which cults are likened to POW camps and deprogramming as heroic hostage rescue efforts. He also makes a distinction between "leavetakers" and "apostates", asserting that despite the popular literature and lurid media accounts of stories of "rescued or recovering 'ex-cultists'", empirical studies of defectors from NRMs "generally indicate favorable, sympathetic or at the very least mixed responses toward their former group."[50]
see pg. 311-312 in "Sociology of Religions" 2nd Ed. put in table of various Baha'i religious sects with criteria of relevance to the designation of destructive cult sociologically speaking.