|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 19:24:17 GMT -5
Here are a number of reasons I jotted down the other day.
1) Harmful cults like FLDS, Waco and others are always led by a single, charismatic leader. The friends are led by a large group of workers and elders. There is a hierarchy, but every organisation has one.
2) They don't take a large portion of their members' financial resources as do Scientology and some other groups, in fact, the church runs on much lower overhead than almost any denomination. You actually don't have to give any money to the organisation to belong.
3) Any member can exit at any time. There is no routine or widespread practice of shunning as is practiced by Amish or Mennonites. There is no doctrine-based shunning.
4) Differences from the background culture are based on longstanding Biblical beliefs, and are not calculated purely to isolate people.
5) The friends do not isolate themselves from society, attending public schools, and working in and running regular businesses.
6) Their values are caring and reasonable. They don't have any unusual practices in terms of imbibing drugs, refusing blood transfusions or sexual impropriety.
7) Many of their beliefs are constructive to mental and physical health. No drinking, no smoking, concern for proper diet and exercise. Their members tend to be long-lived.
8) There are cases of non-conforming members being ill-treated, and there have been victims of social cliquishness. However, those cases are not distinguishable in character from 'victims' in any church setting or social group.
9) There are no cases of former members or members being physically threatened or coming to harm, unlike truly malevolent cults.
10) Members of the group are constructive members of society: business leaders, teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, accountants, homebuilders and any profession you can care to name.
There are always exceptions to every rule. This is my honest impression of 99% of the 100,000 plus members of the church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 19:31:16 GMT -5
Whathat. Appreciate what you wrote. I don't think many of my church really care if they are called a "cult." Jesus' church was labelled something similar, if I get the translation right. It's when you are in a church which doesn't suffer reproach that you need to worry, because the bible says offenses and reproach "must" come.
Having said that, I am sure there will be a torrent of replies from people who will find some exception to the general rules you have thoughtfully and quite honestly elucidated here.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 24, 2015 19:32:19 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with your points. However the workers are presenting a "total truth" and historically, that truth has been weak in its witness of the unsurpassed and necessarily imputed righteousness of Christ --- should salvation be based upon works. That is why our salvation is not based upon OUR works but CHRISTS.
Praise God
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 19:35:56 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with your points. However the workers are presenting a "total truth" and historically, that truth has been weak in its witness of the unsurpassed and necessarily imputed righteousness of Christ --- should salvation be based upon works. That is why our salvation is not based upon OUR works but CHRISTS. Praise God You are perfectly entitled to that point of view and critique. No systematic theology is perfect, IMO, including the friends'.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 24, 2015 19:47:27 GMT -5
Can I trust that it is God who has entitled me to my POV or must I rely upon you? Is it better to regard anyone's POV as an entitlement, or a responsibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 19:54:40 GMT -5
I disagree with number 3. A tape of the Alberta fiasco of 1999 reveals efforts to keep current members away from dissenters. It may be more subtle in Truth than in say Ammish or JWs but it is present. Parents have disinherited children. Family members haven't spoke to each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:06:14 GMT -5
Walker! Shsssssh! We are not supposed to either think of that one nor any other exception to that list!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 24, 2015 20:09:37 GMT -5
I disagree with number 3. A tape of the Alberta fiasco of 1999 reveals efforts to keep current members away from dissenters. It may be more subtle in Truth than in say Ammish or JWs but it is present. Parents have disinherited children. Family members haven't spoke to each other. Shunning is not a "routine or widespread practice". I agree though, that the behaviour of the ministry around the Alberta fiasco was a disgrace - as was the reluctance of most F&W to do anything about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:14:06 GMT -5
Bert, thank you for your comments here. As a child I was told we were a cult of believers following only "Jesus Christ." Then the term, like "gay," turned unfortunately negative for many people. My sister's middle name is "Gay" unless she has had it changed.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 24, 2015 20:16:21 GMT -5
Here are a number of reasons I jotted down the other day. 1) Harmful cults like FLDS, Waco and others are always led by a single, charismatic leader. The friends are led by a large group of workers and elders. There is a hierarchy, but every organisation has one. The above cites "Harmful cults". The topic/subject is just "cult."
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 24, 2015 20:29:29 GMT -5
What Hat, how would you characterize what happened to Edgar Massey - not just the fact they were excommunicated by the workers, but also the fact that they were cut off from all the friends and that nobody inquired from them about their side of the story, but just took the workers' word for what happened? Alberta may fall in the same category, Vietnam also, as well as what happened to the folks in Chicago who pleaded with the overseers to remove an immoral/abusive worker from the ministry, only to be removed from the email list and told they can't take part until they forgive the offender?
(I'm not saying it's a cult, but privately, when thinking about all these things, all I can say to myself is: it's a c.u.l.t. .... Not based on any definition, but on what I instinctively feel a cult is. I am so embarrassed by these things that I haven't even told my friends and family (non professing) why we left - I don't want them to shake their head and say: what? you spent 16 years in a cult??? didn't you see the signs? what were you thinking???)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:32:08 GMT -5
Here are a number of reasons I jotted down the other day. 1) Harmful cults like FLDS, Waco and others are always led by a single, charismatic leader. The friends are led by a large group of workers and elders. There is a hierarchy, but every organisation has one. The above cites "Harmful cults". The topic/subject is just "cult." isn't being in a cult considered harmful emotionally, spiritually or physically?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 24, 2015 20:44:16 GMT -5
Or why do the members of the Victorian CSA Support Group feel they have to protect their identities so they are not found out by the ministry? Why can support not be openly extended to CSA victims? What is so evil or dangerous about supporting them?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 24, 2015 20:56:35 GMT -5
The above cites "Harmful cults". The topic/subject is just "cult." isn't being in a cult considered harmful emotionally, spiritually or physically? I do not know. Seems some have different definitions for the same word in a certain context. Different interpretations on one statement. Hard to know. For me, I have to ask, "what do you mean by...?". Edit: Just a thought . . . If indeed "harmful" is inherent to cult, then one need not say a cult is harmful.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 21:54:56 GMT -5
Walker! Shsssssh! We are not supposed to either think of that one nor any other exception to that list! Uh, Dennis, has anyone ever succeeded in silencing you?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 22:01:38 GMT -5
I disagree with number 3. A tape of the Alberta fiasco of 1999 reveals efforts to keep current members away from dissenters. It may be more subtle in Truth than in say Ammish or JWs but it is present. Parents have disinherited children. Family members haven't spoke to each other. True. My wording accounts for those incidents. Here is the wiki definition. "In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules." The friends don't do that routinely to all ex's, or to those who marry outside, as some religious groups do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 22:05:09 GMT -5
Here are a number of reasons I jotted down the other day. 1) Harmful cults like FLDS, Waco and others are always led by a single, charismatic leader. The friends are led by a large group of workers and elders. There is a hierarchy, but every organisation has one. The above cites "Harmful cults". The topic/subject is just "cult." It's implied. There is a neutral usage of the word 'cult', but never in the context of religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 22:06:58 GMT -5
What Hat, how would you characterize what happened to Edgar Massey - not just the fact they were excommunicated by the workers, but also the fact that they were cut off from all the friends and that nobody inquired from them about their side of the story, but just took the workers' word for what happened? Alberta may fall in the same category, Vietnam also, as well as what happened to the folks in Chicago who pleaded with the overseers to remove an immoral/abusive worker from the ministry, only to be removed from the email list and told they can't take part until they forgive the offender? (I'm not saying it's a cult, but privately, when thinking about all these things, all I can say to myself is: it's a c.u.l.t. .... Not based on any definition, but on what I instinctively feel a cult is. I am so embarrassed by these things that I haven't even told my friends and family (non professing) why we left - I don't want them to shake their head and say: what? you spent 16 years in a cult??? didn't you see the signs? what were you thinking???) To answer your first question: abuse of power. Those events do not follow from the group's beliefs and practices, and in fact, are at odds with them. None of those events are out of line with events that occur in churches, companies and other organisations when there are power struggles and disagreements. The people that have the worst of it with the friends are workers or elders who fall out of favour. But how often do those events happen? Half a dozen very serious incidents in a group of 100,000? I know of one difficult situation with a worker in Ontario in the thirty years we went to meeting; she was exited from the work against her will because she proved 'unpopular'. I also wasn't happy with how our exit was handled. When you compare to the standard you expect in a church it's very poor behaviour. But unfortunately one finds evidence of these kinds of incidents in every church. And by comparison business leaders routinely act in heartless fashion and the bad actors in business are generally far worse. It follows that in a hierarchy with perhaps 100 head workers worldwide, some of those leaders will be sociopaths. That is, they don't have a true heart for the position and are able to mask their motivations and how they really work, and such individuals are sometimes very good at getting to the top. In a true cult, a single sociopath is the leader, someone charismatic, able to manipulate, but with no true heart to serve. In a democracy there are limited terms of office, and you can vote those people out. Within the friends, no worker has absolute power and the workers are like a 'college' so they do have some ability to demote, or to re-assign workers. Sorry, but you don't get to label a church group as worse than all other church groups for events that happen in churches and religious groups everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 22:23:54 GMT -5
I am sorry to have offended you, WhatHat. If you wanted me to shuddup and go away, all you needed to do was ask politely.
Today I used this place to help me cope with lonesome bedridden pain. I am sorry for having done that.
I'm outta here
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 22:33:39 GMT -5
I am sorry to have offended you, WhatHat. If you wanted me to shuddup and go away, all you needed to do was ask politely.
Today I used this place to help me cope with lonesome bedridden pain. I am sorry for having done that.
I'm outta here You didn't see the smile on my face when I wrote that, Dennis.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2015 22:42:19 GMT -5
I disagree with number 3. A tape of the Alberta fiasco of 1999 reveals efforts to keep current members away from dissenters. It may be more subtle in Truth than in say Ammish or JWs but it is present. Parents have disinherited children. Family members haven't spoke to each other. Shunning is not a "routine or widespread practice". I agree though, that the behaviour of the ministry around the Alberta fiasco was a disgrace - as was the reluctance of most F&W to do anything about it. Fixit ~ I must add that shunning practices are very dependent on the area you live in and the attitudes of the members. However, when I left the 2x2's, I was not only shunned by some of the folks during and after I left the meetings, but by friends up North who I counted as my real friends. It seems that the Rumor Mill is great at spreading stories about what some want others to believe about you and many don't try to check things out for themselves. Most hearty professing folks will accept what the workers say at face value, even if there is not a grain of truth connected to it. Honestly, I can also remember being advised by workers in younger days to have no contact with a young friend of mine who left the 2x2's. However, I did not oblige them because she was my friend regardless of her choice to leave the group and I refused to abide by such foolish restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 24, 2015 22:42:22 GMT -5
What Hat, how would you characterize what happened to Edgar Massey - not just the fact they were excommunicated by the workers, but also the fact that they were cut off from all the friends and that nobody inquired from them about their side of the story, but just took the workers' word for what happened? Alberta may fall in the same category, Vietnam also, as well as what happened to the folks in Chicago who pleaded with the overseers to remove an immoral/abusive worker from the ministry, only to be removed from the email list and told they can't take part until they forgive the offender? (I'm not saying it's a cult, but privately, when thinking about all these things, all I can say to myself is: it's a c.u.l.t. .... Not based on any definition, but on what I instinctively feel a cult is. I am so embarrassed by these things that I haven't even told my friends and family (non professing) why we left - I don't want them to shake their head and say: what? you spent 16 years in a cult??? didn't you see the signs? what were you thinking???) Abuse of power. OK. What about the fact that those who are aware of such abuse of power chose to ignore it rather than to speak up against it or at least inquire about it? Another example is SS - when he was removed from the work, nobody asked questions nor pushed for a resolution. One worker in that area told us that the friends there don't ask or have a need to know, so why should we, and also that he himself cannot inquire about it. Why do the f&w's chose willful ignorance even when someone is being a victim of abuse of power? Most f&w's are good people, and my conclusion is that the reason is fear of repercussions were they to speak up and/or belief that the workers/older workers should always be obeyed and deferred to. Would that fall under "dictatorial and systemic abuse of power"? Or what about the fact that such abuse of power happens all over the world and is not openly criticized anywhere? Those in place of authority are revered and at the same time are not accountable to anyone, which creates an environment where abuse of power can happen whenever those in authority have their interests threatened. I am not saying it happens all the time, but there is nothing to stop it if it were to happen.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2015 22:48:48 GMT -5
The above cites "Harmful cults". The topic/subject is just "cult." It's implied. There is a neutral usage of the word 'cult', but never in the context of religion. What Hat ~ Perhaps it should be clarified that what was once considered "Bible cults of Christianity" in the past are now considered New Religion Movements (NRM's) today for the same reasons or behavioral characteristics. Only difference is a more socially accepted name for the same group. Perhaps it's less offensive to some, but the same criteria pretty much applies within most of these groups with their special bent on religion. You will find the Two by Twos described towards the end of this long list of NRM's, by the way. So, they are not unique in their claims, but one among many who think they have the corner on salvation and God neatly packed in a BOX of their own making. You will also find the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) , Jehovah Witnesses, Church of Scientology, and Universalists (who are more inclusive than exclusive) on this list, along with the 2x2's and many other fringe groups.
However, none of this is really new, since early Christianity was a patch-work of various beliefs relating to Christ during the first three centuries until things became more defined around the 4th century regarding Creeds of Belief within the organized Church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 22:54:32 GMT -5
Shunning is not a "routine or widespread practice". I agree though, that the behaviour of the ministry around the Alberta fiasco was a disgrace - as was the reluctance of most F&W to do anything about it. Fixit ~ I must add that shunning practices are very dependent on the area you live in and the attitudes of the members. However, when I left the 2x2's, I was not only shunned by some of the folks during and after I left the meetings, but by friends up North who I counted as my real friends. It seems that the Rumor Mill is great at spreading stories about what some want others to believe about you and feel try to check things out for themselves. Most hearty professing folks will accept what the workers say at face value, even if there is not a grain of truth connected to it. Honestly, I can also remember being advised by workers in younger days to have no contact with a young friend of mine who left the 2x2's. However, I did not oblige them because she was my friend regardless of her choice to leave the group and I refused to abide by such foolish restrictions.
If you leave the group, no one is under any obligation to associate with you. If they don't, that does not mean they are shunning you. I can can honestly say that if I had received your exit letter while I was in the group, I'd not shun you, but I'd feel seriously disrespected by your exit letter.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2015 22:57:45 GMT -5
OK. What about the fact that those who are aware of such abuse of power chose to ignore it rather than to speak up against it or at least inquire about it? Another example is SS - when he was removed from the work, nobody asked questions nor pushed for a resolution. One worker in that area told us that the friends there don't ask or have a need to know, so why should we, and also that he himself cannot inquire about it. Why do the f&w's chose willful ignorance even when someone is being a victim of abuse of power? Most f&w's are good people, and my conclusion is that the reason is fear of repercussions were they to speak up and/or belief that the workers/older workers should always be obeyed and deferred to. Would that fall under "dictatorial and systemic abuse of power"? Or what about the fact that such abuse of power happens all over the world and is not openly criticized anywhere? Those in place of authority are revered and at the same time are not accountable to anyone, which creates an environment where abuse of power can happen whenever those in authority have their interests threatened. I am not saying it happens all the time, but there is nothing to stop it if it were to happen. Maja ~ So fitly spoken! I personally saw enough abuse of power by the workers in my 30 years of professing to know it does happen and is accepted among the friends. This is mainly because of their fear loss of privileges or position if they spoke up about such abuses. CSA is a typical example of this over the years within the fellowship, often perpetrated by workers in authority over the friends. People don't speak up for fear of retaliation and expulsion normally.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2015 23:03:31 GMT -5
Fixit ~ I must add that shunning practices are very dependent on the area you live in and the attitudes of the members. However, when I left the 2x2's, I was not only shunned by some of the folks during and after I left the meetings, but by friends up North who I counted as my real friends. It seems that the Rumor Mill is great at spreading stories about what some want others to believe about you and feel try to check things out for themselves. Most hearty professing folks will accept what the workers say at face value, even if there is not a grain of truth connected to it. Honestly, I can also remember being advised by workers in younger days to have no contact with a young friend of mine who left the 2x2's. However, I did not oblige them because she was my friend regardless of her choice to leave the group and I refused to abide by such foolish restrictions.
If you leave the group, no one is under any obligation to associate with you. If they don't, that does not mean they are shunning you. I can can honestly say that if I had received your exit letter while I was in the group, I'd not shun you, but I'd feel seriously disrespected by your exit letter. What Hat ~ My Exit Letter was not directed towards anybody in particular, but addressed what I felt at the time over two years later due to new information gained. I had been shunned by a number within our meeting area for years before I left. It was nothing new to me! Most exit narratives express one's true feelings. Honestly, how can you be truthful and not express how you really feel, which is the purpose of the letter in the first place? If things were so "hunky-dory" with the group, folks wouldn't be leaving in the first place, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 24, 2015 23:05:46 GMT -5
What Hat, how would you characterize what happened to Edgar Massey - not just the fact they were excommunicated by the workers, but also the fact that they were cut off from all the friends and that nobody inquired from them about their side of the story, but just took the workers' word for what happened? Alberta may fall in the same category, Vietnam also, as well as what happened to the folks in Chicago who pleaded with the overseers to remove an immoral/abusive worker from the ministry, only to be removed from the email list and told they can't take part until they forgive the offender? (I'm not saying it's a cult, but privately, when thinking about all these things, all I can say to myself is: it's a c.u.l.t. .... Not based on any definition, but on what I instinctively feel a cult is. I am so embarrassed by these things that I haven't even told my friends and family (non professing) why we left - I don't want them to shake their head and say: what? you spent 16 years in a cult??? didn't you see the signs? what were you thinking???) To answer your first question: abuse of power. Those events do not follow from the group's beliefs and practices, and in fact, are at odds with them. None of those events are out of line with events that occur in churches, companies and other organisations when there are power struggles and disagreements. The people that have the worst of it with the friends are workers or elders who fall out of favour. But how often do those events happen? Half a dozen very serious incidents in a group of 100,000? I know of one difficult situation with a worker in Ontario in the thirty years we went to meeting; she was exited from the work against her will because she proved 'unpopular'. I also wasn't happy with how our exit was handled. When you compare to the standard you expect in a church it's very poor behaviour. But unfortunately one finds evidence of these kinds of incidents in every church. And by comparison business leaders routinely act in heartless fashion and the bad actors in business are generally far worse. It follows that in a hierarchy with perhaps 100 head workers worldwide, some of those leaders will be sociopaths. That is, they don't have a true heart for the position and are able to mask their motivations and how they really work, and such individuals are sometimes very good at getting to the top. In a true cult, a single sociopath is the leader, someone charismatic, able to manipulate, but with no true heart to serve. In a democracy there are limited terms of office, and you can vote those people out. Within the friends, no worker has absolute power and the workers are like a 'college' so they do have some ability to demote, or to re-assign workers. Sorry, but you don't get to label a church group as worse than all other church groups for events that happen in churches and religious groups everywhere. I can see that abuse of power is very likely to happen in highly hierarchical churches, but not all churches are structured that way. And not many churches revere those in authority as 'anointed ones' nor believe that they should be obeyed regardless of one's conscience. Add to that the belief that one is lost for eternity if they don't remain faithful to the system, and the conditions are perfect for unchecked abuse of power. You know of one difficult situation with a worker, I know of several, likely everyone knows of at least one. But, most of us don't connect the dots and see the bigger picture. So, we all may think that the cases we know of are isolated, when in fact they are not. Sure, you can compare churches with churches, but I don't like comparing them with businesses, as businesses are not the standard on which to judge churches? So, in a cult you have one sociopath at the helm, whereas in a regular church you may have several? Yes, we were told that the fellowship is lead by a group of "equals" and that it takes a "consensus of equals" to make a decision. Which brings me back to lack of accountability and transparency in decision-making done at this level. The "equals" are above everyone else and don't answer to anyone. This is not how most Protestant churches are run.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 23:19:14 GMT -5
It's implied. There is a neutral usage of the word 'cult', but never in the context of religion. What Hat ~ Perhaps it should be clarified that what was once considered "cults" of Christianity in the past are now considered New Religion Movements (NRM's) today for the same reasons. Perhaps not so offensive to some, but the same criteria pretty much applies within these groups, too. You're completely mistaken. 'New religious movements' are not a synonym for 'cult'. The term refers to all relatively 'new religious movements' some of which have systemically harmful social practices and some do not. Here is a reasonable schema for the sociological evaluation criteria of a harmful cult. Each criteria can be ranked on a scale of 1 to 10. 1. Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 2. External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. 3. Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. 4. Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. (Source - www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html ) On some of these points the friends will score high, but it's the overall picture that is important. Actually, a group that scores very low in aggregate probably has issues of another kind.
|
|