|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 7:26:33 GMT -5
To those who believe that the meetings isn't a cult, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you believe this is so.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 1, 2011 13:59:53 GMT -5
To those who believe that the meetings isn't a cult, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you believe this is so. It would depend on which of the many definitions of 'cult' you choose to use. "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."Leo Pfeffer In the newsgroup alt.usage.english, terms like this one are often called "skunk words." They have diverse meanings to different people. They have so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is the universally accepted definition of the term.A small, recently created, religious organization which is often headed by a single charismatic leader and is viewed as an spiritually innovative group. A cult in this sense may simply be a new religious movement on its way to becoming a denomination. The Christian religion, as it existed in 30 CE might be considered a cult involving one leader and 12 or 70 devoted disciples as followers. The Mormon denomination was started in the 19th century by Joseph Smith and a few followers; it met this definition of "cult" but has since grown to become an established denomination of about 15 million members.www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htmSo to answer your question you will need to provide your definition of cult so we are all on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 17:55:37 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 17:58:05 GMT -5
To those who believe that the meetings isn't a cult, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you believe this is so. "the meetings isn't a cult." Interesting grammar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 18:02:15 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned. So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 18:37:26 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned. So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. Yes, I'd like to hear from the professing folks here why the meetings isn't a cult (negative term). We often hear why the meetings "is a cult" so let's hear why it isn't a cult.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 1, 2011 19:21:26 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned. So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. That list describes my job more accurately than it describes my church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 19:27:00 GMT -5
So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. That list describes my job more accurately than it describes my church. I was thinking that it described the nation of Japan before WW II or China back in the days of Marco Polo.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Nov 1, 2011 19:43:12 GMT -5
Why don't we just apply the definition of "cult" to most groups, and then get on with life. "Well I'm proud to be an okie from Miskogee"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 20:00:48 GMT -5
Why don't we just apply the definition of "cult" to most groups, and then get on with life. "Well I'm proud to be an okie from Miskogee" Amicable solution. I'm thinking of getting a tee shirt that says "I belong to a fundamentalist cult that believes we should practice what we preach." That ought to start a few conversations in the checkout line.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 1, 2011 21:51:10 GMT -5
So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned.
1. We believe in hearts and minds controlled by God through the Holy Spirit. 2. I am free to mingle with whom I choose, but it's true that God has always called out a separated people. 3. I am not aware of "a" minority leader. There are many leaders who work together in making decisions. I have no problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 2, 2011 19:34:18 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned. So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. The county jail?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 20:40:13 GMT -5
So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. The county jail? That answer wins the prize!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 3, 2011 10:40:21 GMT -5
Cult as in the modern day term of the word, cult as in a negative term, cult as in any group that controls members & encourages isolation from the outside, cult as in any group that has a minority leadership over the majority whose authority can never be questioned. With your definition you have defined the answer as well. You clearly have an axe to grind and have predetermined the results.
|
|
|
Post by redeemed on Nov 3, 2011 14:42:33 GMT -5
There is a lot of generalisations here. I would have thought that every church has some discipline standards they apply to control their members. Of course some of the workers are more strict than others but I think you get that in every church.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 3, 2011 20:26:48 GMT -5
That answer wins the prize! Thank you, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 5, 2011 7:26:09 GMT -5
So, you are answering Rational's question by defining cult as: A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned. That list describes my job more accurately than it describes my church. Time to move jobs?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Nov 10, 2011 2:22:50 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation, and then it goes further to whom the interpretation is done by. I have to use the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. In order to be a cult, the movement need not follow every aspect described as a cult, according to the description. If enough items are descriptive enough to have the group appear as a cult, then it must be given the label as a cult. I did some serious soul searching about certain aspects of whether or not this 2x2 group was to be considered a cult, and my conclusions at first were shaky. As I got further away from the influence and involvement with the group, I came to the conclusion that enough of the cult requirements had been met, and I was satisfied in my mind that it was a cult. I know this will be attacked as a negative statement, but I feel like the men and women that started this were trying to find a way to get and keep their members, and fear and mind control were two very important aspects that developed in the long run. Whether or not this was intentional or not, and whether of not the evolution of the ideas was meant to achieve this goal was intentional, or not, I feel like that line was established clearly enough for me. I was shocked when I realized I had been brainwashed, and held by the grip of fear, not from a scriptural point of view, but by "Men's" tweaking and twisting scriptures and making rules and I found that I was victim of these two things, intentional or not. If it was not intentional, it was picked up on and pushed to the limit by those that came after the Irvines, Cooney's, Longs, and others. As I always try to convey, that I have friends involved as active members in the group, and I feel like they are in a position that their lives are lived in a way that they are living in the fashion that God wants from them, so again, when I speak of these things, I am referring to the system, and not the people. Each person is an individual and as such, has a responsibility to God. The brainwashing, mind control and other negative aspects are, in my opinion to be those things that make it a cult, and affect a certain amount of people that are connected with the group, and can not be denied that they exist, and affect that part of the "population" of the group that is more than obvious. There may be what some may consider to be positive aspects from those tactics, to be 'good for certain individuals' and I can only state that whether or not they are positive will be determined on the other side of the life/death gate.
I agree that in general labeling this as a cult may seem harsh, and will definitely draw a negative response from some readers, but if not this, they would generally make them have to work a little harder to find other things that would render an negative connotation to the group. I am just being honest in what I see as a reality and as one that was there, and left because the tactics were too dishonest for me and I couldn't handle that methods of "getting me in line to tow the line".
I hope this will be viewed for what it really is, and not just a bash session. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's cult is another man's salvation. Just a saying that sums up my feelings, again not calling anything trash....Laz
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 10, 2011 13:29:28 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation, and then it goes further to whom the interpretation is done by.... There is no clearcut definition of a cult, so the rest of your comments have little relevance to me.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 10, 2011 13:57:42 GMT -5
Why the multiple posts? There are... <snip> ....Laz
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 21, 2011 15:46:35 GMT -5
I have some close relatives who were members of a cult for a few years back in the 70's. It was a commune setting on the outskirts of a reasonably large city. All members worked within the commune that was self-supporting with sales of food from their gardens as well as other items that members produced and sold. Additionally all members were required to work outside the commune at least half-time and all proceeds from sales as well as wages were totally turned over to the leader of the cult.
There was mandatory early morning spiritual (pep talk) meetings as well as required study in the evenings. Meals were communal. Sleeping was in a barracks environment. There was really no such thing as privacy of any sort allowed. Control was absolute.
One of my relatives got a job at a auto body shop. The owner grew to like him and his work and gave him pay raises, but didn't report it to the cult leader, keeping it back. At some point there was enough to buy an old VW and make some long distance telephone calls which were very expensive at the time. We were able to get enough info from him to be able to meet him where he worked (in another state) and make plans to get he and his sister out. Unknown at the time, the sister was already making similar plans and the two of them extracted themselves without our help.
So that is what I think of as a cult. Whether it is clear cut to the rest of you, it certainly is clear cut to me. The control workers have over the friends is 'zip' in comparison. Since the workers rely on the friends for financial support, the friends actually have control over the workers. It is rare that this control is exercised or even needed. Rather they work together to resolve any problems that might develop which are few and usually minor. But the ultimate control is with the friends.
I define the meetings as a fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 21, 2011 18:32:03 GMT -5
I have some close relatives who were members of a cult for a few years back in the 70's. It was a commune setting on the outskirts of a reasonably large city. All members worked within the commune that was self-supporting with sales of food from their gardens as well as other items that members produced and sold. Additionally all members were required to work outside the commune at least half-time and all proceeds from sales as well as wages were totally turned over to the leader of the cult. There was mandatory early morning spiritual (pep talk) meetings as well as required study in the evenings. Meals were communal. Sleeping was in a barracks environment. There was really no such thing as privacy of any sort allowed. Control was absolute. One of my relatives got a job at a auto body shop. The owner grew to like him and his work and gave him pay raises, but didn't report it to the cult leader, keeping it back. At some point there was enough to buy an old VW and make some long distance telephone calls which were very expensive at the time. We were able to get enough info from him to be able to meet him where he worked (in another state) and make plans to get he and his sister out. Unknown at the time, the sister was already making similar plans and the two of them extracted themselves without our help. So that is what I think of as a cult. Whether it is clear cut to the rest of you, it certainly is clear cut to me. The control workers have over the friends is 'zip' in comparison. Since the workers rely on the friends for financial support, the friends actually have control over the workers. It is rare that this control is exercised or even needed. Rather they work together to resolve any problems that might develop which are few and usually minor. But the ultimate control is with the friends. I define the meetings as a fellowship. Good post!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 22, 2011 0:15:03 GMT -5
I have some close relatives who were members of a cult for a few years back in the 70's. It was a commune setting on the outskirts of a reasonably large city. All members worked within the commune that was self-supporting with sales of food from their gardens as well as other items that members produced and sold. Additionally all members were required to work outside the commune at least half-time and all proceeds from sales as well as wages were totally turned over to the leader of the cult. There was mandatory early morning spiritual (pep talk) meetings as well as required study in the evenings. Meals were communal. Sleeping was in a barracks environment. There was really no such thing as privacy of any sort allowed. Control was absolute. One of my relatives got a job at a auto body shop. The owner grew to like him and his work and gave him pay raises, but didn't report it to the cult leader, keeping it back. At some point there was enough to buy an old VW and make some long distance telephone calls which were very expensive at the time. We were able to get enough info from him to be able to meet him where he worked (in another state) and make plans to get he and his sister out. Unknown at the time, the sister was already making similar plans and the two of them extracted themselves without our help. So that is what I think of as a cult. Whether it is clear cut to the rest of you, it certainly is clear cut to me. The control workers have over the friends is 'zip' in comparison. Since the workers rely on the friends for financial support, the friends actually have control over the workers. It is rare that this control is exercised or even needed. Rather they work together to resolve any problems that might develop which are few and usually minor. But the ultimate control is with the friends. I define the meetings as a fellowship. I agree, ronhall. That is what I see a cult as. I do see how others would think the meetings "is" a cult, though. What the workers must come to realize is that the exclusivity doctrine is not helping them. Whether a worker believes it or not, they have to recognize that the most disgruntled of the exiters are going to, at some point, mention how much they believed the exclusivity and how it affected them. How the fear of "losing out" or not "fitting in" factored in to their discontent and lack of freedom. My wife was in a very strict home that IS a cult. They were also top of the line professers. The workers called them "too zealous". And my wife was financially dependent and gave most of her money to her dad or other family causes. Immoral worker involvement helped them keep their cover. But it was the workers in SA that called that family a cult. The workers sort of had a love hate relationship with them. If you take South Africa as an example, you can see how the work can get blamed for being a cult. They are off down to themselves and the overseers are not really answerable to the rest of the world. They sorta are, but how are the rest of the workers going to know really what is going on down there on a regular basis and in secret? An overseer from California went down to SA this year to do something or another about the immorality issues, but that is very limited. Still there are workers traveling to conventions from SA and can preach the worker doctrine regardless of how much of a womanizer or how deceptive they are. It passes for the right spirit because they know all the right words. I think that the exclusivity doctrine must fall away and so must the denial that it is there. It is really important. That doctrine has the potential to keep people bound in fear and ripe for abuse. Predators and immoral people will find other ways to be abusive, but at least let them not use a false doctrine when it is in our power to change it. EDIT: Ron, the workers were not interested in helping my wife out of the "cult" that they had identified. They couldn't because the cult knew too much about them and their immorality. The workers were involved in a cult whether they liked it or not. They would sooner that my wife did not tell all she knew about the shared dishonesty between her family's cult and the workers. I do think the workers should be interested in anyone who is coming out of a cult and needs help. The workers in SA could not show and interest and could only condemn us. We sincerely thought that they would help us at least establish honesty and integrity. Instead they showed themselves to only cover for themselves. Is that a cult?...Perhaps that is the wrong word. But they are messing with fire of some sort down there.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 22, 2011 0:44:35 GMT -5
My wife was in a very strict home that IS a cult. They were also top of the line professers. The workers called them "too zealous". And my wife was financially dependent and gave most of her money to her dad or other family causes. Immoral worker involvement helped them keep their cover. But it was the workers in SA that called that family a cult. The workers sort of had a love hate relationship with them. Some would call this a dysfunctional family. Others would use the F&W as the scapegoat for the problems. Perhaps because they realized it was not a cult but a dysfunctional family situation? And this was your sister-in-law and PM? Or was there other acts of immorality?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 22, 2011 1:28:17 GMT -5
My wife was in a very strict home that IS a cult. They were also top of the line professers. The workers called them "too zealous". And my wife was financially dependent and gave most of her money to her dad or other family causes. Immoral worker involvement helped them keep their cover. But it was the workers in SA that called that family a cult. The workers sort of had a love hate relationship with them. Some would call this a dysfunctional family. Others would use the F&W as the scapegoat for the problems. Perhaps because they realized it was not a cult but a dysfunctional family situation? And this was your sister-in-law and PM? Or was there other acts of immorality? Can only go by what the workers said. A professional later confirmed that the family is a "family cult". However, I agree with you. The work is every bit as dysfunctional as my wife's family. It is the severe dysfunction that makes it look like a cult in some people's eyes. The workers have rationalized their immorality to the point that they are using a worldly standard to deal with immorality rather than a Godly standard. In doing so, they have made their religion no better off and no worse off than a very intelligent, atheistic point of view. I think many of the friends become exes when they expect something different from God's servants. It is a shame that the workers are doing more to prove the atheists right than they are in proving God right.
|
|
pauper
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pauper on Jun 25, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5
While I went to meeting, I struggled with whether the fellowship was a cult. I knew when I first came into contact with the F&W’s that there were rumors about the fellowship being a cult, but I saw no signs of it for several years. I reasoned that some people were just offended that the word of God was being preached. But, that changed when I moved to a region in which people in the fellowship were rebelling against the word of God. When the workers began to defend those people, others in the fellowship modified their beliefs and misinterpreted scriptures to justify those beliefs. Then, they would be offended when certain scriptures were spoken that contradicted their doctrine, which really applied to so much of the Bible that it was agonizing to decide what to speak on. But, when I went to meetings in other regions, friends and workers in those areas clearly had an understanding of scriptures consistent with mine.
People in the meeting I went to would even claim that it was okay to doubt the word of God, but unforgivable to question the workers and the fellowship. One sister worker claimed that failing to accept the workers’ teachings was the same as rebelling against God, and likened it to the Israelites complaining to Moses in rebellion against God. She, and others, implied that the workers have authority over the Bible, to interpret it as they see fit, and that God is obliged to accept their decisions because they are appointed by Him. Yet, I was reading a while back in Leviticus and noted that it says over and over that Moses did everything God commanded him, including all that He instructed Moses to relay to Aaron and his sons.
Although I struggled horribly for more than twelve years, I was hesitant to leave the fellowship because of the idea that had been engrained in me that the F&W way is the right way to salvation. I was determined to gain the same understanding of others in my fellowship meeting, but the more I prayed and the more I studied the Bible, the broader the gap grew. Most disturbing, I think, was that I was hearing a lot of the same misconceptions about the Gospel - almost verbatim - that I had heard in the “worldly” churches and which were refuted by friends and workers in the first meetings I attended. After the doctrine changed in the latter meeting I attended, the only difference between the F&W fellowship and “worldly” churches was ultimately “the church in the home and the ministry without a home.” In meeting, it was essential to pointedly apply any observations about the Pharisees and scribes, or the false prophets to “worldly churches” to avoid offending F&W’s. The accepted focus of meeting was reassuring ourselves and each other that we were right with God because we were in the right place and following the “right” people. Even then, I reasoned to myself that calling something a cult does not make it a cult any more than calling something Truth makes it the truth. I still have to agree that the definition of a “cult” is subjective, but there are certain indicators of danger, even spiritually, I feel that we need to take heed of and flee from.
|
|
pauper
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pauper on Jun 25, 2012 17:13:32 GMT -5
That list describes my job more accurately than it describes my church. Time to move jobs? Really, the F&W fellowship began to remind me of a very stressful job I once had. In that job, I wasn't the direct supervisor over staff, but I was responsible for training staff and seeing that they performed their duties correctly. I did as I was supposed to, but staff rebelled because they were used to shirking their jobs and falsifying documentation. While some management tried to set things in order, some staff lower in the company hierarchy had too much influence and would get them fired. The management who stayed were those who allowed staff to do as they pleased because they found that they could also get away with dishonest deeds. The CEO seemed concerned at first, but then there were rumors that he was bilking the system, amid other immoral practices. The rumors turned out to be true (he was eventually indicted on charges of fraud and money laundering after I was no longer with the company). Because he was dishonest, he didn't intervene when management was dishonest and they weren't concerned about him finding out since they were aware of what he was doing. When I learned about the immorality in the F&W ministry, I began to understand what was happening. It was similar to the cycle of immorality in that frustrating job. Since the workers depend on the friends for their livelihood, they are hesitant to correct those in families that provide much of their needs, including lodging and transportation. Not only that, but they are engaging in immorality themselves, or know of workers who are. They especially don't feel comfortable preaching to edify with the knowledge that some of the overseers are doing the same things the friends are doing - or worse. I was surprised to learn, too, that some of the friends were already aware of the corruption in the ministry, while others were suspicious of such activity. This knowledge has undoubtedly emboldened some of the friends to break the commandments and not feel remorse, because they believe they only have to answer to the workers. It's a mutually gratifying relationship, albeit un-Christian. I'm certainly not suggesting that this pertains to the whole F&W fellowship, because there are many people - both friends and workers - striving to do what they believe is right. The corruption and immorality, though, exist and thrive through the same mechanisms that exist in the world.
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Jun 25, 2012 20:08:16 GMT -5
To those who believe that the meetings isn't a cult, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you believe this is so. "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."Leo Pfeffer The above is pretty much is how I see it, not just the 2x2, but religions in general. Even using the following ... A negative term for a group that: 1. controls its members 2. encourages isolation from outside 3. has a minority leader over the majority whose authority cannot be questioned.1) Control is minimal, and is (almost) limited to those who seek out the works advise at every turn 2) ? ? ? again ... minimal 3) 'leader?' Almost from the beginning it was 'leader s' not an individual ... and the leaders (workers) can not only be questioned, but they can be and have been run out of town. ... which is why this is so fitting ... but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult
|
|