Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 1:54:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're saying. It speaks for itself in what way. A thousand people leaving the group or not joining the group would have a thousand unique experiences as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not aware of any statistics on this. Could you share what you know? Edited later - removed last question which may not be fair. What Hat ~ My point was that if the F&W fellowship was so appealing, why are the number of friends decreasing substantially every year to the point that meetings are consolidated, conventions closed down in different states and workers volunteering for the ministry decreasing with many young workers leaving after only a few years in the field? Whatever the drawing card may have been years ago, it doesn't seem to be working in today's high tech world? Internet has changed the flow of information today to the point that nothing can be kept under wraps and covered up like it was in past days. I may not have exact statistics, but recent testimonies of members leaving on pro-boards like this reflect this trend. I am reminded of these verses:
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 1:57:08 GMT -5
What Hat ~ I wonder if Rational on this board considered it a "blessing" within his life to be B&R within the fellowship? Blessing is ot the word I would choose. All in all I think it was a positive experience.Some people professed in form if not in substance.There are many factors. Rational ~ Thanks for your clarification here. I believe one's professing experience probably has a lot to do with one's parents and how they ruled the home-life? I had a number of professing friends in the past whose parents were so strict with them, they lost all interest in any church involvement after leaving home and became totally turned off by all churches after the 2x2's. I reckon if their meeting experience was actually positive, this would not be such a common occurrence among ex-members? Also, the workers seem more preoccupied in keeping the few that remain behind than "evangelizing" for the "lost" in the world, which must contribute its fair share to the dwindling membership? Although I professed for 30 years, my last 14 years after our move South was not encouraging among the friends. I can only think my reason for sticking it out so long was the workers programming of "doom and gloom" for those who depart and become those dreaded "apostates." We went through a number of difficult times alone with little encouragement from the friends or workers and more criticism than anything else. So, the time finally came that I hit my threshold of endurance and departed with no regrets 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 2:15:14 GMT -5
What Hat ~ I wonder if Rational on this board considered it a "blessing" within his life to be B&R within the fellowship? The fact that they never professed should speak for itself of the influence the F&W's really had over their lives? If it was so attractive to them, why didn't they join the group along with their parents? You mean that if young people don't profess, then the only explanation is that the group is a cult?
There are lots of reasons young people don't follow the church of their parents .. in any church.
What Hat ~ I never insinuated that above. That's your words, not mine. I simply pointed out that if the group was so inviting to the young folks as "The Truth" and only "Perfect Way," they surely didn't confirm it by their actions. I personally know a few ex-members that felt so "smothered" by their parents beliefs, that they became atheists after leaving. In fact, it seems to be a common occurrence among many of the young friends leaving the fellowship and its traditions. You stated the same yourself in an earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 2:42:00 GMT -5
I'm by no means deprecating people who have had negative experiences within the friends' group. But experiences vary greatly. There are children whose parents, as far as I'm concerned, are neurotic, and their kids are traumatized by the things their parents and their relatives did or do. There are other kids who haven't continued with the group, and have a normal relationship with their parents and their family. I know more in the latter category than the former, but one doesn't see everything going on behind closed doors either. I do think that you cannot take the experience of apostates as 'general'. What Hat ~ You do know that all ex-members are considered "apostates" in the eyes of F&W's? So, whose word can you take seriously in this case? Personally, I feel all the unwritten rules and requirements of workers is enough to make any sane person neurotic over time. Living in a "bubble" and being constantly scrutinized by the workers and friends is stressful no matter how you look at it. It's no wonder that F&W's erect their "emotional walls" to protect their privacy and sanity within the fellowship and tend to come across as being distant or aloof as a result, IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 3:15:16 GMT -5
I'm by no means deprecating people who have had negative experiences within the friends' group. But experiences vary greatly. There are children whose parents, as far as I'm concerned, are neurotic, and their kids are traumatized by the things their parents and their relatives did or do. There are other kids who haven't continued with the group, and have a normal relationship with their parents and their family. I know more in the latter category than the former, but one doesn't see everything going on behind closed doors either. I do think that you cannot take the experience of apostates as 'general'. What Hat ~ You do know that all ex-members are considered "apostates" in the eyes of F&W's? So, whose word can you take seriously in this case? Personally, I feel all the unwritten rules and requirements of workers is enough to make any sane person neurotic over time. Living in a "bubble" and being constantly scrutinized by the workers and friends is stressful no matter how you look at it. It's no wonder that F&W's erect their "emotional walls" to protect their privacy and sanity within the fellowship and tend to come across as being distant or aloof as a result, IMHO. I've never heard anyone professing call someone an "apostate", I have heard them call them "lost" "unwilling" "willful" "bitter"...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 5:23:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're saying. It speaks for itself in what way. A thousand people leaving the group or not joining the group would have a thousand unique experiences as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not aware of any statistics on this. Could you share what you know? Edited later - removed last question which may not be fair. What Hat ~ My point was that if the F&W fellowship was so appealing, why are the number of friends decreasing substantially every year to the point that meetings are consolidated, conventions closed down in different states and workers volunteering for the ministry decreasing with many young workers leaving after only a few years in the field? Whatever the drawing card may have been years ago, it doesn't seem to be working in today's high tech world? Internet has changed the flow of information today to the point that nothing can be kept under wraps and covered up like it was in past days. I may not have exact statistics, but recent testimonies of members leaving on pro-boards like this reflect this trend. Appealing, pleasing and attractive, which are sentiments that you ascribe to me in several posts now, are not properties I ascribe to the friends' way of life in any general way. It doesn't seem to me like you're dealing with what I said.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 5:31:58 GMT -5
You mean that if young people don't profess, then the only explanation is that the group is a cult?
There are lots of reasons young people don't follow the church of their parents .. in any church.
What Hat ~ I never insinuated that above. That's your words, not mine. I simply pointed out that if the group was so inviting to the young folks as "The Truth" and only "Perfect Way," they surely didn't confirm it by their actions. I personally know a few ex-members that felt so "smothered" by their parents beliefs, that they became atheists after leaving. In fact, it seems to be a common occurrence among many of the young friends leaving the fellowship and its traditions. You stated the same yourself in an earlier post. There you go again. "If the group was so attractive". You seem to be refuting the attractiveness of the group. Did I say somewhere it was attractive. The question that you asked me was whether I thought the friends were a 'high control' group and that is what I answered.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 5:45:47 GMT -5
Just peaking in to say that just because someone doesn't write about how they felt upon leaving, doesn't mean that it didn't feel like a major decision for them. The point is that those who do write are a skewed sample in terms of making sweeping generalizations about those who do not write.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 11, 2015 5:48:59 GMT -5
What Hat ~ My point was that if the F&W fellowship was so appealing, why are the number of friends decreasing substantially every year to the point that meetings are consolidated, conventions closed down in different states and workers volunteering for the ministry decreasing with many young workers leaving after only a few years in the field? Whatever the drawing card may have been years ago, it doesn't seem to be working in today's high tech world? Internet has changed the flow of information today to the point that nothing can be kept under wraps and covered up like it was in past days. I may not have exact statistics, but recent testimonies of members leaving on pro-boards like this reflect this trend. You need to ask the bigger question - Why are people leaving organized religion at the rate they are?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 6:00:27 GMT -5
I'm by no means deprecating people who have had negative experiences within the friends' group. But experiences vary greatly. There are children whose parents, as far as I'm concerned, are neurotic, and their kids are traumatized by the things their parents and their relatives did or do. There are other kids who haven't continued with the group, and have a normal relationship with their parents and their family. I know more in the latter category than the former, but one doesn't see everything going on behind closed doors either. I do think that you cannot take the experience of apostates as 'general'. What Hat ~ You do know that all ex-members are considered "apostates" in the eyes of F&W's? So, whose word can you take seriously in this case? Personally, I feel all the unwritten rules and requirements of workers is enough to make any sane person neurotic over time. Living in a "bubble" and being constantly scrutinized by the workers and friends is stressful no matter how you look at it. It's no wonder that F&W's erect their "emotional walls" to protect their privacy and sanity within the fellowship and tend to come across as being distant or aloof as a result, IMHO. Definitely there are people who have had extreme difficulty within the friends group. But it's as naive to find fault with the entire group as it is to blame those individuals for their problems. Some have been victimised within the friends' social structure as happens within any strongly purposed and committed organisation. But I don't think the friends are a cult. I feel I would be disloyal and ungrateful to them as individuals and good people if I didn't speak up to indicate that the experience of living in that group is not generally negative for most people in it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 14:45:10 GMT -5
What Hat ~ You do know that all ex-members are considered "apostates" in the eyes of F&W's? So, whose word can you take seriously in this case? Personally, I feel all the unwritten rules and requirements of workers is enough to make any sane person neurotic over time. Living in a "bubble" and being constantly scrutinized by the workers and friends is stressful no matter how you look at it. It's no wonder that F&W's erect their "emotional walls" to protect their privacy and sanity within the fellowship and tend to come across as being distant or aloof as a result, IMHO. I've never heard anyone professing call someone an "apostate", I have heard them call them "lost" "unwilling" "willful" "bitter"... Wally ~ Please note that What Hat used the term "apostates" in his concluding remark in a post I responded to here. However, I have heard workers in the past refer to friends who left as being apostates and even remember a worker who posted on here in the past by the name of Noels use the term often relating to ex-members back in 2011 when I first joined TMB. Perhaps they are not doing this as much now, but it was something remember from my professing days 20 years ago and apparently What Hat remembers the same? I just pointed this out to him that all ex-members were considered the same in the past, which was also equated with such labeling as "lost, unwilling, willful, bitter, etc..."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 14:58:19 GMT -5
What Hat ~ You do know that all ex-members are considered "apostates" in the eyes of F&W's? So, whose word can you take seriously in this case? Personally, I feel all the unwritten rules and requirements of workers is enough to make any sane person neurotic over time. Living in a "bubble" and being constantly scrutinized by the workers and friends is stressful no matter how you look at it. It's no wonder that F&W's erect their "emotional walls" to protect their privacy and sanity within the fellowship and tend to come across as being distant or aloof as a result, IMHO. Definitely there are people who have had extreme difficulty within the friends group. But it's as naive to find fault with the entire group as it is to blame those individuals for their problems. Some have been victimised within the friends' social structure as happens within any strongly purposed and committed organisation. But I don't think the friends are a cult. I feel I would be disloyal and ungrateful to them as individuals and good people if I didn't speak up to indicate that the experience of living in that group is not generally negative for most people in it. What Hat ~ Regardless how quaint and friendly the 2x2 system may appear to some, there's still evidence of workers micro-managing the friends' lives throughout the world and in some areas it more than found in others. Such behavior is very intrusive in one's life and speaks of cultish behavior ~ especially where abuse in leadership control over lives is evidenced by the overseer in charge. Willis Propp might be a good example in Alberta, Canada, for instance, of overstepping personal boundaries with the friends back in 1999 with his "lording it over the flock" and "mind control" tactics used to keep folks in line?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 11, 2015 15:17:42 GMT -5
Wally ~ Please note that What Hat used the term "apostates" in his concluding remark in a post I responded to here. However, I have heard workers in the past refer to friends who left as being apostates and even remember a worker who posted on here in the past by the name of Noels use the term often relating to ex-members back in 2011 when I first joined TMB. Perhaps they are not doing this as much now, but it was something remember from my professing days 20 years ago and apparently What Hat remembers the same? I just pointed this out to him that all ex-members were considered the same in the past, which was also equated with such labeling as "lost, unwilling, willful, bitter, etc..."
Apostates is the term sociologists and scholars studying NRMs use to describe those who leave NRMs. It is, by definition, the correct term to use. Even though apostate has been used by posters here on TMB I don't recall ever hearing anyone in the fellowship outside of this board use it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 15:20:33 GMT -5
What Hat ~ Here's what I posted earlier regarding the four different methods of control used by groups with cultish characteristics of "persuasive coercion." The breakdown below relates to the Jehovah Witnesses and their Watchtower Society as well as other groups with similar characteristics of control over their members. I might add that "thought control" is just another name for "mind control" here. Being completely honest with yourself, don't you see a few areas below that also reminds you of the 2x2's in their leadership structure and behaviors?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 15:27:08 GMT -5
Wally ~ Please note that What Hat used the term "apostates" in his concluding remark in a post I responded to here. However, I have heard workers in the past refer to friends who left as being apostates and even remember a worker who posted on here in the past by the name of Noels use the term often relating to ex-members back in 2011 when I first joined TMB. Perhaps they are not doing this as much now, but it was something remember from my professing days 20 years ago and apparently What Hat remembers the same? I just pointed this out to him that all ex-members were considered the same in the past, which was also equated with such labeling as "lost, unwilling, willful, bitter, etc..."
Apostates is the term sociologists studying NRMs use to describe those who leave NRMs. It is, by definition, the correct term to use. Even though apostate has been used by posters here on TMB I don't recall ever hearing anyone in the fellowship outside of this board use it. Jesse ~ Thanks for clarifying that for us. Yes, I agree I mainly have heard the term used here on this board and other pro-boards, but only occasionally heard it used by workers on the outside. Mainly, this was back in the 1960's to late 1980's. No doubt they have replaced the word with other descriptions like Wally gave above, but it is definitely the term used by sociologists for New Religious Movements (NRM's) as you pointed out in your post. This term is also still used today by Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Church of Scientology, and some other NRM's to describe ex-members who leave their groups. Here's a long list of NRM's below. You will find the Two by Twos towards the end of the list, by the way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements List of New Religious Movements
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 15:57:56 GMT -5
What Hat ~ This was a previous post of mine to bring to your attention to the fact that there has been various websites created related to the 2x2s, books written, and historical sites (like Cherie's TTT and TLC public site) created relating to the 2x2's over the past 20 years. Maybe you don't like the use of the word cult and would feel better with "new religious movement" instead, but that still doesn't change the behavioral characteristics of these groups as I outlined in a previous post. Basically, if it looks a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's pretty much safe to say it's a "duck" in reality, regardless what label you attach to it. Personally, I don't feel folks get that adamant about writing a book about some religious group unless it really impacted their life in a particular way? What would be the point otherwise? JMT
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 11, 2015 16:23:55 GMT -5
What Hat ~ This was a previous post of mine to bring to your attention to the fact that there has been various websites created related to the 2x2s, books written, and historical sites (like Cherie's TTT and TLC public site) created relating to the 2x2's over the past 20 years. Maybe you don't like the use of the word cult and would feel better with "new religious movement" instead, but that still doesn't change the behavioral characteristics of these groups as I outlined in a previous post. Basically, if it looks a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's pretty much safe to say it's a "duck" in reality, regardless what label you attach to it. Personally, I don't feel folks get that adamant about writing a book about some religious group unless it really impacted their life in a particular way? What would be the point otherwise? JMT So is there something seriously wrong with Christianity that results in ex-Christian websites? new.exchristian.net/
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 11, 2015 16:54:02 GMT -5
What Hat ~ This was a previous post of mine to bring to your attention to the fact that there has been various websites created related to the 2x2s, books written, and historical sites (like Cherie's TTT and TLC public site) created relating to the 2x2's over the past 20 years. All those books and reference sites are written and published by what scholars and sociologists call a "vociferous minority". There is no question whatsoever it is a minority. I get so sick and tired of people misrepresenting what we believe.Me too. We've been down this road many times before. These quotes are from a 2011 discussion; "Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
- Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
- Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority." Jesse L quoted: How do these 3 narratives apply to the ex-2x2s? I'm not aware of any "new religious movements" that the ex2x2ss have constructed. Cherie the dry objective explanation is that per Massimo, Wilson et al the 2x2s are a "new religious movement". (These scholars advocate using "NRM" instead of "cult".) People that exit NRMs (apostates) fall into the three narrative types. People like Fortt, Lewis, ilylo, Massey, Cooper are the obvious "apostates that profess type III naratives [and] are a vociferous minority" of all those that have exited the NRM (in this case 2x2s). People have recently posted that "40,000" people have left, obviously most of those would fall into types I and II, not type III. More; "Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." All this is fairly easy for a coherent, objective observer to see.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 11, 2015 17:33:52 GMT -5
I know MANY ex 2x2, but can't recall any of them considering it a "non event", leaving the group. It was mostly a "big deal" life changing, event. ,Alvin Think of kids that were raised in the fellowship, and never professed. There are lots of those around here, and I know quite a few. Most are grateful for their family life among the friends, but just don't buy into the religious beliefs. Now think about people who professed, maybe went to meeting for a few years, and then stopped going. Both of those groups are significantly larger than ex's who post on the Internet. I have to agree with this somewhat. I am one of those kids and while it wasn't a non event while I still lived at home and was forced to attend every meeting and convention, once I left home it was really a non issue. I know of families that professed for a few years and then left and I really don't think it was much of an issue for them either. However, for those who are born and raised in the Truth and they are the only ones in generations of professing relatives, and they do profess for 30 or 40 odd years after they leave home, it's probably an event. I came from a family where my grandparents professed in 1915 so it was really a shock to my parents when I turned away from it and they did everything they could while I lived at home to get me back in the 'fold'. Once I left home, which I did the same day I wrote my final exam in grade 12, I never paid any attention to their efforts to get me to re-profess. I respected that they had to do that, believing what they believed and it hurt me that they truly believed I was going to hell and when they died I was lost to them, but I have lived my own life since I left home. It likely could have been worse if they had shunned me completely like some have had happen, but they didn't so it was more just a frustration that they never got it that I wasn't coming back. But some didn't have it easy. Personally I can't imagine the courage it must take for someone who has professed for 60+ years from birth, and then left. All their friends would be 'the friends' and a way of life, gone. Huge I would imagine! I know a couple that won't quit professing for the very reason they might lose their son and not be allowed to see their grandchildren. Now that's sad because they truly aren't happy anymore and they are in their late 70's. They don't feel they can leave.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 11, 2015 18:02:34 GMT -5
I know a couple that won't quit professing for the very reason they might lose their son and not be allowed to see their grandchildren. Now that's sad because they truly aren't happy anymore and they are in their late 70's. They don't feel they can leave. I think this would be pretty unusual these days Snow.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 11, 2015 18:24:24 GMT -5
Christ certainly wasn't anti-social, but he respected his personal right to privacy, privilege, and preference for his own thoughts, mind, and intimacy with The Father. Earth has never known an organized authority that does not pose some threat to this prerogative. Any authority that presents otherwise is a cult.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 11, 2015 18:38:48 GMT -5
This kind of circular reasoning can be used by any Christian group! (and usually is )
DMG ~ I agree that "circular reasoning" or "faulty logic" can be used by any Christian group, but is especially observed within religious groups trying to justify their particular exclusive man-made traditions with scripture. In fact, I shared this diagram above as an example of some faulty assumptions made by JW's, but it could pertain to any church steeped in legalism and tradition in the form of ridiculous rules and requirements for membership. Yes, "circular reasoning" or "faulty logic" can be used by any Christian group trying to justify their particular exclusive man-made traditions with scripture, including the Baptist.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 22:44:42 GMT -5
Definitely there are people who have had extreme difficulty within the friends group. But it's as naive to find fault with the entire group as it is to blame those individuals for their problems. Some have been victimised within the friends' social structure as happens within any strongly purposed and committed organisation. But I don't think the friends are a cult. I feel I would be disloyal and ungrateful to them as individuals and good people if I didn't speak up to indicate that the experience of living in that group is not generally negative for most people in it. What Hat ~ Regardless how quaint and friendly the 2x2 system may appear to some, there's still evidence of workers micro-managing the friends' lives throughout the world and in some areas it more than found in others. Such behavior is very intrusive in one's life and speaks of cultish behavior ~ especially where abuse in leadership control over lives is evidenced by the overseer in charge. Willis Propp might be a good example in Alberta, Canada, for instance, of overstepping personal boundaries with the friends back in 1999 with his "lording it over the flock" and "mind control" tactics used to keep folks in line? Speaking of circular reasoning, at this point I think we're going around in circles. I addressed your four points above, so I don't see any need to go through it all again.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 22:52:52 GMT -5
I've never heard anyone professing call someone an "apostate", I have heard them call them "lost" "unwilling" "willful" "bitter"... Wally ~ Please note that What Hat used the term "apostates" in his concluding remark in a post I responded to here. However, I have heard workers in the past refer to friends who left as being apostates and even remember a worker who posted on here in the past by the name of Noels use the term often relating to ex-members back in 2011 when I first joined TMB. Perhaps they are not doing this as much now, but it was something remember from my professing days 20 years ago and apparently What Hat remembers the same? I just pointed this out to him that all ex-members were considered the same in the past, which was also equated with such labeling as "lost, unwilling, willful, bitter, etc..."
I'm with wally on this one. I know a number of words that the friends never use but I do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 22:58:46 GMT -5
What Hat ~ Here's what I posted earlier regarding the four different methods of control used by groups with cultish characteristics of "persuasive coercion." The breakdown below relates to the Jehovah Witnesses and their Watchtower Society as well as other groups with similar characteristics of control over their members. I might add that "thought control" is just another name for "mind control" here. Being completely honest with yourself, don't you see a few areas below that also reminds you of the 2x2's in their leadership structure and behaviors?
Could you do me a favour, faune, and read my previous answer to the same question, and if you find anything you disagree with there, please let me know. Here it is: professing.proboards.com/post/647181
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 23:05:05 GMT -5
Apostates is the term sociologists studying NRMs use to describe those who leave NRMs. It is, by definition, the correct term to use. Even though apostate has been used by posters here on TMB I don't recall ever hearing anyone in the fellowship outside of this board use it. Jesse ~ Thanks for clarifying that for us. Yes, I agree I mainly have heard the term used here on this board and other pro-boards, but only occasionally heard it used by workers on the outside. Mainly, this was back in the 1960's to late 1980's. No doubt they have replaced the word with other descriptions like Wally gave above, but it is definitely the term used by sociologists for New Religious Movements (NRM's) as you pointed out in your post. This term is also still used today by Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Church of Scientology, and some other NRM's to describe ex-members who leave their groups. Here's a long list of NRM's below. You will find the Two by Twos towards the end of the list, by the way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements List of New Religious Movements
The underlined information is incorrect. The term "apostate" applies to anyone who is in disagreement with a faith or belief they previously held, not only those who were in an NRM. It's not a term unique to NRMs and many NRMs may not even use the word for all we know.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 23:08:48 GMT -5
What Hat ~ This was a previous post of mine to bring to your attention to the fact that there has been various websites created related to the 2x2s, books written, and historical sites (like Cherie's TTT and TLC public site) created relating to the 2x2's over the past 20 years. Maybe you don't like the use of the word cult and would feel better with "new religious movement" instead, but that still doesn't change the behavioral characteristics of these groups as I outlined in a previous post. Basically, if it looks a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's pretty much safe to say it's a "duck" in reality, regardless what label you attach to it. Personally, I don't feel folks get that adamant about writing a book about some religious group unless it really impacted their life in a particular way? What would be the point otherwise? JMT There is so little logical connection in that string of sentences, it wearies me to even think of trying to correct it. You're not passing along any information I haven't seen before .. like 10 years ago, and a thousand times since.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 11, 2015 23:14:19 GMT -5
What Hat ~ This was a previous post of mine to bring to your attention to the fact that there has been various websites created related to the 2x2s, books written, and historical sites (like Cherie's TTT and TLC public site) created relating to the 2x2's over the past 20 years. All those books and reference sites are written and published by what scholars and sociologists call a "vociferous minority". There is no question whatsoever it is a minority. I get so sick and tired of people misrepresenting what we believe.Me too. We've been down this road many times before. These quotes are from a 2011 discussion; "Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
- Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
- Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority." Cherie the dry objective explanation is that per Massimo, Wilson et al the 2x2s are a "new religious movement". (These scholars advocate using "NRM" instead of "cult".) People that exit NRMs (apostates) fall into the three narrative types. People like Fortt, Lewis, ilylo, Massey, Cooper are the obvious "apostates that profess type III naratives [and] are a vociferous minority" of all those that have exited the NRM (in this case 2x2s). People have recently posted that "40,000" people have left, obviously most of those would fall into types I and II, not type III. More; "Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." All this is fairly easy for a coherent, objective observer to see. That's pretty much how I see it. No question our exit was a Type I. We spent a lot of time with the local workers and the head worker around the time of our exit, and although there was disagreement, the tone was amicable.
|
|