|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 23:22:03 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. Again, CSA is a function of power and sociopathy as it exists in almost EVERY church group. There's nothing unique or different about the CSA abuses that have occurred among the friends, sad to say, actually. However, the friends have been slow on the draw to deal with the issue from an awareness perspective.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 23:27:06 GMT -5
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 dorrie" with the group, folks wouldn't be leaving in the first place, IMHO? Sure, you expressed how you felt, and some of the friends expressed how they felt. That's not shunning. How can you not see that? Have you read your exit letter lately?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2015 23:30:41 GMT -5
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 dorrie" with the group, folks wouldn't be leaving in the first place, IMHO? Sure, you expressed how you felt, and some of the friends expressed how they felt. That's not shunning. How can you not see that? Have you read your exit letter lately? What Hat ~ Yes, I have read my Story and my Exit Letter on TLC recently and stand by what I shared as my feelings back in August 1997 (Exit Letter) as well as my updated Story in May 2011. My opinion regarding what I experienced has not changed much, although I have definitely moved on in my spiritual journey. I value what I learned along the way that has shaped my POV today and I'm not ashamed to share with others the details of my life experiences that contributed to the same. thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=178:gerber-faune-fuller&catid=5:recent-exit-stories&Itemid=6 (Story ~ May 2011)
thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34:gerber-faune-fuller&catid=7:before-2000&Itemid=8 (Exit Letter ~ August 1997)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 23:46:11 GMT -5
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. Functional structure has a lot to do with abuse of power. A church that has a board of elders balanced against a ministry, in some way, is a better structure functionally. The friends do have elders, but they're below the workers when they should have parity. That might eventually happen. But that shortcoming doesn't make the friends a cult. In the Brethren church, the elders have all the power with nothing to balance them off. Again, not a cult though. In a cult, there's a very strict hierarchy with one powerful leader at the top. Yes, and I have a large extended family with ministers and private school teachers in another church. So I do know power struggles are not unique to the friends. Human nature doesn't change. However, the Reformed church does have a more balance structure. On the other hand, they fight a lot. From an organisational point of view, businesses can be better in that if you get fired from one, even unfairly, you can go and work for another one. With the Hell belief if you're excommunicated, and that's true in any church, you're out of the general congregation of the believers. So the heaven/hell thing raises the stakes considerably. But in another sense, what's worse, losing your livelihood or losing your religion. It depends somewhat on where your head is at on the religion part. The issue I see is what processes you have in place to deal with sociopathic behaviour. And also other negatives, like incompetence. The workers do have some ability to deal with issues with head workers. In a cult you will see emerging over a period of time, systematic abuse of all members: physical, sexual and emotional, by a single leader and their henchmen. Also extreme ostracisation, and a totally internally managed belief system. One group I've read about that meets this description is the FLDS.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2015 23:51:28 GMT -5
Faune, that's all fine that it's your honest opinion. But why would you expect the friends that you knew to be friendly to you after you called them 'Pharisees'? And comparing the friends' beliefs with the forbidden fruit offered by Satan?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 0:14:56 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. Agree in the main. However, your list would equally apply to say the JW's (except point 6 re blood transfusions) which is regarded as a cult. (3) is not quite on the money. In the main it is not easy to leave at all, particularly when you have professing friends and relatives. I don't think shunning across the board takes place but there is clear public preaching that those who have left have lost their faith or been unwilling to follow Jesus ie they have lost their salvation. The JWs are not a cult from a sociological perspective. They have endured tremendous harm and been victimised around the world. Indeed, it is not easy to leave. But the friends will let you leave, that is the point. They'll barely try to talk you out of it. There is the fear of losing your salvation but that is true of any church, that is, if you leave off going to church at all. You do have a slight advantage in your church. If you dislike the people or you've been mistreated you can just go to another denomination and keep your salvation intact. And many people do just that. If you have this kind of experience in the friends' church, you don't have many options. You can request a change of meeting, but if you're in a one meeting city, your options are limited.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 0:20:43 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? Unfortunately, the entitlement is coming just from me, so it's of limited usefulness, I admit. I don't know if God feels that you're entitled to yours, or that I am to mine, for that matter. You'll have to take that up with Him. Oh, and if presenting one's point of view is a responsibility and not just a right, I would imagine that everyone would present their point of view with a great deal more discretion than is commonly the case, myself included.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jun 25, 2015 0:29:28 GMT -5
It is what it is, and there is good and bad in any group, but I don't believe anyone who has been a part of or is presently a member of the 2x2 church , has or had motives to HARM people deliberately , by being a member of this group, including themselves or loved ones. "nobody joins a cult" Alvin
Nobody ever joins a cult. One joins a nonprofit group that promotes green technology, animal rights, or transcendental meditation. One joins a yoga class or an entrepreneurial workshop. One begins practicing an Eastern religion that preaches peace and forbearance. The first rule of recruitment, writes Margaret Singer, the doyenne of cult scholarship, is that a recruit must never suspect he or she is being recruited. The second rule is that the cult must monopolize the recruit’s time
Nathaniel Rich
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 25, 2015 0:45:29 GMT -5
... the many who left in Sydney and surrounds in the late 1990's and early 2000's are still waiting for the apology for what was said and done What was said and done?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 25, 2015 0:51:19 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. 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. I know of two cases where the workers told people not to have anything to do with people they kicked out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 4:19:44 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 Yes, you have a valid point, and that is an indication that the fellowship is not perfect, it does have some flaws, but they do not amount to it being a cult as some folks have suggested, let us get real here.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:23:05 GMT -5
It is what it is, and there is good and bad in any group, but I don't believe anyone who has been a part of or is presently a member of the 2x2 church , has or had motives to HARM people deliberately , by being a member of this group, including themselves or loved ones. "nobody joins a cult" Alvin Nobody ever joins a cult. One joins a nonprofit group that promotes green technology, animal rights, or transcendental meditation. One joins a yoga class or an entrepreneurial workshop. One begins practicing an Eastern religion that preaches peace and forbearance. The first rule of recruitment, writes Margaret Singer, the doyenne of cult scholarship, is that a recruit must never suspect he or she is being recruited. The second rule is that the cult must monopolize the recruit’s time Nathaniel Rich Of course, but you write as if those 2 things help identify a cult. They don't. The point is that cults disguise their malevolence, and attract people based on an appealing motive. Once they've hooked the recruits through love bombing or a strong motive they begin to abuse them, particularly financially and possibly sexually or through harmful, deviant practices. If you don't have the malevolent part you only have a high commitment group, quite possibly a virtuous one. You have to identify the malevolence affecting the membership at large to call it a cult.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Jun 25, 2015 6:27:28 GMT -5
So they're not a cult.......just ONE of MANY groups that attempt to emulate a FEW PARTS of the New Testament while ignoring MANY others. Just ONE of MANY groups that pick and choose parts of the Old Testament as important while completely ignoring others, some even within the same chapter.
And even though the Friends group is ONE of MANY, they claim to be the ONE and ONLY!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:32:02 GMT -5
The JWs are not a cult from a sociological perspective. They have endured tremendous harm and been victimised around the world. Indeed, it is not easy to leave. But the friends will let you leave, that is the point. They'll barely try to talk you out of it. There is the fear of losing your salvation but that is true of any church, that is, if you leave off going to church at all. You do have a slight advantage in your church. If you dislike the people or you've been mistreated you can just go to another denomination and keep your salvation intact. And many people do just that. If you have this kind of experience in the friends' church, you don't have many options. You can request a change of meeting, but if you're in a one meeting city, your options are limited. Not so sure that they aren't a cult from a sociological perspective - obviously open to debate. My only experience is when we left the 2x2's I fellowshipped with a guy who have left the JW's (he regarded them very much as cult) but his wife remained a firm JW member. The minister at his church was definitely not welcome by her thru their front door at their home and her husband respected her viewpoint to keep the peace and their marriage intact. JW's aside, I would say in our own experience that the following sociological characteristics of cults were very evident in our 2x2 leaving process: Exclusivism - we were endangering our souls or more pointedly going to hell by leaving the 2x2's Opposition to Independent thinking - our thinking and views were automatically classified as of Satan Threats of Satanic Attack - because we had questioned the workers we had blasphemed and we were now of the devil and open to his attacks on our lives Hence, why I call that cult-like behaviour. Interestingly, I've heard recently that the local workers looking back feel that they should have handled it differently. This is all third person but the many who left in Sydney and surrounds in the late 1990's and early 2000's are still waiting for the apology for what was said and done Shunning is a cult-like behaviour, but of course many legitimate churches engage in formal shunning far worse than the friends. Shunning and anamathetising those leaving were more common in all churches decades ago. Some of the workers' practices are cultic at times. Formal shunning is a common condition in a cult but not sufficient in itself to identify a cult because it is so common in legitimate religions also.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:34:32 GMT -5
So they're not a cult.......just ONE of MANY groups that attempt to emulate a FEW PARTS of the New Testament while ignoring MANY others. Just ONE of MANY groups that pick and choose parts of the Old Testament as important while completely ignoring others, some even within the same chapter. And even though the Friends group is ONE of MANY, they claim to be the ONE and ONLY! And they are one of many claiming to be the one and only.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:37:30 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 Yes, you have a valid point, and that is an indication that the fellowship is not perfect, it does have some flaws, but they do not amount to it being a cult as some folks have suggested, let us get real here. The emphasis on works, when not imposed as form over heart service, is something I've always liked about the friends.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:42:16 GMT -5
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. I know of two cases where the workers told people not to have anything to do with people they kicked out. Agreed. Not good and often even unjust and unChristian. Common in conservative churches though and living here in Mennonite country I've seen far worse. Their rationale is that shunning is essentially being cruel to be kind, tough love helping the wayward back to Christ. Tough love is much over-rated in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 6:53:09 GMT -5
Nothing terribly dramatic except: - letters from Head Worker etc to some who had questioned him or other workers stating they had committed blasphemy for questioning "God's true servants" - public sermons stating that those who had left had lost their faith and had rejected God - many private statements from workers (which got back to us immediately) that we were "unwilling for what it takes to follow Jesus" - many comments from workers such as "we feel desperately sad for you", "we are praying earnestly for you", "I would have thought better of you than to ask that question..." etc - examples of where workers would abruptly end a conversation and get up and leave the person in a group gathering - when the person said something they didn't agree with. Others were told afterwards (which immediately got back to us) that they didn't want to talk to the person about a certain thing so simply (rudely) got up and left - at one convention I am not seriously asking for an apology - I just having a bit of fun... And of course, for balance, there were plenty of questions asked by many of us .... but honestly, we asked some pretty basic questions like "how are we saved" and the answer was so convoluted and ministry based that it bore no resemblance to the Bible. Hey, all we did was change church! It can't be that difficult I can picture the entire scene and it sounds quite ugly on both sides. If you presented the workers with your current views on theology they'd want to make sure you didn't contaminate anyone else with it. So their response is understandable, if not very wise. One of the reasons I haven't joined a church like yours is that they get very nervous about my universalist views. Just how it is. Look at how Rob Bell is scourged by traditionalists. It's a parallel example. Even on TMB your traditionalist Christian companions in crime have accused me of leading the widows and orphans astray. That's religion. Best way to keep friends and family is sometimes to not discuss religious or political differences. I suspect also that if you go to another church, e.g. go over to the dark side, there will be stronger feelings against you from the workers than the friends. I would advise a low key approach to anyone in that situation, no matter what church. Even non-exclusive but devout Christians can be very hurt when someone leaves to join an 'inferior' church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 7:29:55 GMT -5
What Hat, I read this tread last night and have thought about it a lot. I do not like the word cult. I also do not agree with all the statements on your list.
For a group to claim they represent Jesus and to shun anyone is not right. To say it does not happen is dishonest.
To say that those that were on the edge are those that have left is also very dishonest. Some have pleaded with workers and friends to deal with issues like the bible says to no avail.
To say that just because these things have happen to a few is not BIG deals is also very dishonest. All men have a soul before God and most workers I know say they went in the worker to seek for the lost souls of other men. To say that and treat others unkind because they may question you or disagree with you is also very dishonest. Is that the example Jesus left for others to follow.
To say that when you leave meeting why should others have anything to do with you is also very petty. That means that they only cared for your soul while you were in meeting. Is that what the love of God teaches us. Did Jesus say to love only those that love you? Does that kind of treatment ever encourage anyone to come back to meeting?
The lack of care and kindness when others leave meeting speaks volumes for this group. Indifference to the hurt and suffering of others is deadly to a soul. There is nothing Godly about those actions. They are actions of dishonest people and one I do not feel God will ever look down on with approval.
Honest people deals with issues. Dishonest people try and bury them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 7:51:33 GMT -5
What Hat, I read this tread last night and have thought about it a lot. I do not like the word cult. I also do not agree with all the statements on your list. For a group to claim they represent Jesus and to shun anyone is not right. To say it does not happen is dishonest. To say that those that were on the edge are those that have left is also very dishonest. Some have pleaded with workers and friends to deal with issues like the bible says to no avail. To say that just because these things have happen to a few is not BIG deals is also very dishonest. All men have a soul before God and most workers I know say they went in the worker to seek for the lost souls of other men. To say that and treat others unkind because they may question you or disagree with you is also very dishonest. Is that the example Jesus left for others to follow. To say that when you leave meeting why should others have anything to do with you is also very petty. That means that they only cared for your soul while you were in meeting. Is that what the love of God teaches us. Did Jesus say to love only those that love you? Does that kind of treatment ever encourage anyone to come back to meeting? The lack of care and kindness when others leave meeting speaks volumes for this group. Indifference to the hurt and suffering of others is deadly to a soul. There is nothing Godly about those actions. They are actions of dishonest people and one I do not feel God will ever look down on with approval. Honest people deals with issues. Dishonest people try and bury them. Okay, now go back and re-read what I actually said, not what you first thought I said. I can't spend an hour correcting your post when you clearly didn't take the time to read carefully. It's also helpful to me if you quote my actual words rather than loose paraphrasing.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 25, 2015 10:37:44 GMT -5
Yes, you have a valid point, and that is an indication that the fellowship is not perfect, it does have some flaws, but they do not amount to it being a cult as some folks have suggested, let us get real here. The emphasis on works, when not imposed as form over heart service, is something I've always liked about the friends. Both of you miss the point. The fellowship isn't just imperfect, it is largely antithetical to everything God is communicating to us through Jesus, in particular the futility of our supposing we can procure eternal life through our works. All of this rant and raving about what is and what isn't a cult is a diversion, a favorite one of WhatHats. It shouldn't surprise any of us if individuals and organizations exhibit the tell-tale signs of a cult. We are all irrational and partial, it is the human condition. This prognosis, however, is not the conclusion of the matter. In Christ we can put to death our flesh and continue to perceive the resurrected Christ, who shares freely with all.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 10:58:31 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. Is this s function of the church or family dynamics? I, and a number of other people I know, at least 2 who post here, have left and not been disinherited and still socialize with members since leaving. That would indicate it is not a function of the F&W or a universal policy of the workers. The workers and the F&W do make a great scape goat on which to dump things that go wrong in your life.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 25, 2015 11:09:37 GMT -5
What, you are absolutely killing the cult sacred cow with coherence, logic, and objectivity. It's dead, but obviously its owners like to keep it propped up like El Cid for inspirational purposes.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 11:23:50 GMT -5
What, you are absolutely killing the cult sacred cow with coherence, logic, and objectivity. It's dead, but obviously its owners like to keep it propped up like El Cid for inspirational purposes. Not only the owners but the ex-members seem to need to consider it a cult. Might make it easier to shift responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 12:04:20 GMT -5
The emphasis on works, when not imposed as form over heart service, is something I've always liked about the friends. Both of you miss the point. The fellowship isn't just imperfect, it is largely antithetical to everything God is communicating to us through Jesus, in particular the futility of our supposing we can procure eternal life through our works. All of this rant and raving about what is and what isn't a cult is a diversion, a favorite one of WhatHats. It shouldn't surprise any of us if individuals and organizations exhibit the tell-tale signs of a cult. We are all irrational and partial, it is the human condition. This prognosis, however, is not the conclusion of the matter. In Christ we can put to death our flesh and continue to perceive the resurrected Christ, who shares freely with all. The reason I started the thread is that the 'cult' conversation has flared up again on TMB lately. If that hadn't happened this thread would not exist. The cult attack framework, in terms of these phoney lists and pseudo-science, have all been invented by the so-called Counter Cult Movement and includes carm.org and other attack sites. The Counter Cult Movement is just a front for forceful, right wing, mostly American, evangelicals who want to keep a good size moat around their religious beliefs. The problem with the pseudo-science is that it keeps people from discussing their actual problems in real terms. So I do agree with the idea that the conversation is a diversion. But it's not a diversion that was initiated by me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 15:16:21 GMT -5
What Hat, I am not sure what I did not understand from your post.
Did you want a discussion about the tread you posted or were you just making a statement? If you did not want any response then I am sorry if I offended you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 16:17:55 GMT -5
The reason I started the thread is that the 'cult' conversation has flared up again on TMB lately. If that hadn't happened this thread would not exist. The cult attack framework, in terms of these phoney lists and pseudo-science, have all been invented by the so-called Counter Cult Movement and includes carm.org and other attack sites. The Counter Cult Movement is just a front for forceful, right wing, mostly American, evangelicals who want to keep a good size moat around their religious beliefs. The problem with the pseudo-science is that it keeps people from discussing their actual problems in real terms. So I do agree with the idea that the conversation is a diversion. But it's not a diversion that was initiated by me. I agree. If you have been a member of a group for a number of years and now find yourself outside the group, classifying the group as a cult may provide a degree of comfort because, after all, it was a cult and you had been brainwashed. Not your fault, not your responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 25, 2015 16:32:12 GMT -5
What Hat, I am not sure what I did not understand from your post. Did you want a discussion about the tread you posted or were you just making a statement? If you did not want any response then I am sorry if I offended you. I'm not offended in the least. Rather, the problem is that it's a lot of work to clarify when people misunderstand what you've said. Admittedly some of the problem is me not explaining clearly what I mean. One comment you've made is "to say that just because these things have happen to a few is not BIG deals is also very dishonest." I'm not concerned that you've called me dishonest, or my statements dishonest. What does concern me is that the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Let me give you an example. If a certain highway has 10 traffic fatalities a year, when the average is 100 per year for that kind of highway, then in terms of evaluating highway safety, the 10 fatalities are not significant. (I don't think I used the terminology "not a big deal" which is why it is best to use actual quotes.) Anyway, to the 10 families who lost loved ones of course the accidents are very much "a big deal". The question we're discussing is whether the group is a cult, as most people see cults, so in that context the exit experiences really aren't significantly different from what you find among Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative churches. But definitely, some folks have had terrible experiences among the friends. I'm not discounting their experiences in any way. Now, if I have to write 3 paragraphs like this for each of your sentences, I'll be posting for a long time, which is why I asked you to re-read my posts to ensure you have my thinking right. Then we can disagree after that if you like.
|
|