|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 16:37:08 GMT -5
Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. I suppose I have been naive in not researching the backgrounds of the lists...I had gathered that mental health professions who deal with exit-counseling were the authors, not churches. Lists like this have been and continue to be helpful for me in my exit. I don't think they have made me view other churches more positively in comparison necessarily. I don't know very much about other denominations. I just have been helped to see things which have been detrimental to me put into words. I'd love for others to be helped like I have been by them, and so don't like to think of the lists being disregarded. But I'd like to hear more about other ways to bring awareness to the items listed. Everything has some good in it. But I have never seen any constructive dialogue on this forum based on the 'cult' conversation. It's more of the 'throwing stones' variety of conversation. Whereas other threads can be useful and constructive; my advice is to deal with specific behaviours, not vague generalities.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 16:45:35 GMT -5
Whathat: Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)... we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern. Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. What Hat ~ After my recent posting on Page 22, I followed it with a paragraph which gave this disclaimer, which speaks for itself, if there is any confusion here? Not every church is geared towards being "high control groups," and belief in the Trinity or not doesn't necessarily define their standing. We are talking about "highly controlling behaviors" and not doctrine here. When a group feels its necessarily to orchestrate your life for you in a number of areas in order to conform to their standards and be considered approved, I would consider such a group to fall under this classification. Also, it appears that most of these groups that pursue such an agenda, also tend claim that their particular group is "the one and only way of salvation" and exclude other churches outside their group. According to the excerpt below, there are over 3,000 organizations in America alone that fit such descriptions and 10,000 globally. So, as you can see, legalism in all its forms is very much alive and well within a number of church groups today?
Now, I would like to ask you a question. Do you deny that the 2x2's fall within the four (4) main indicators of "mind control" highlighted below along with the JW's and other "one and only true churches" making similar exclusive claims? If so, please clarify your reasons for a difference of opinion?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 10, 2015 16:57:11 GMT -5
Whathat: Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)... we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern. Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. Good post WH. I'm not sure what you refer to as "mainstream Christianity"? Trinitarianism seems to be the litmus test, but Trinitarians disagree amongst themselves. Is Mary the Mother of God? Was Mary conceived immaculately? Is Jesus a man forever? What about transubstantiation? Or does "mainstream Christianity" refer to Calvinist doctrine? Or Bible Belt Evangelism?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 17:02:44 GMT -5
Whathat: Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)... we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern. Withlove ~ Personally, I see no problem with evaluating a church group by these lists created by self-help professionals to identify "high control groups" whose behaviors are not healthy over time for members involved in the same. The testimonies themselves should send up some "Red Flags" that all is not right at the core of their beliefs, IMHO? However, that being said, I would like to share another article from the same site relating to the JW's that speaks for itself of the circular reasoning found within the JW's and other groups similar to them. www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/15-minute-guide-to-truth.php 15 Minute Guide to Truth
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 17:04:58 GMT -5
Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. Good post WH. I'm not sure what you refer to as "mainstream Christianity"? Trinitarianism seems to be the litmus test, but Trinitarians disagree amongst themselves. Is Mary the Mother of God? Was Mary conceived immaculately? Is Jesus a man forever? What about transubstantiation? Or does "mainstream Christianity" refer to Calvinist doctrine? Or Bible Belt Evangelism? It really means the most powerful Christians. In the USA, evangelical Protestants. In Spain, Catholics. Basically, mainstream Christians have political influence, their own post-secondary institutions, an immersive ideology and books, art and culture to go with it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 17:23:26 GMT -5
Good post WH. I'm not sure what you refer to as "mainstream Christianity"? Trinitarianism seems to be the litmus test, but Trinitarians disagree amongst themselves. Is Mary the Mother of God? Was Mary conceived immaculately? Is Jesus a man forever? What about transubstantiation? Or does "mainstream Christianity" refer to Calvinist doctrine? Or Bible Belt Evangelism? It really means the most powerful Christians. In the USA, evangelical Protestants. In Spain, Catholics. Basically, mainstream Christians have political influence, their own post-secondary institutions, an immersive ideology and books, art and culture to go with it. What Hat ~ Shouldn't mainline Christianity actually be defined by what is generally believed to be Christian beliefs among the majority of churches who consider themselves a part of the body of Christ? When you used the teachings of scripture and compare the teachings of these aberrant groups to the same, you definitely notice a difference in what is stressed as doctrinal beliefs along with all the rules of conformity that are very much a part of these "high control" belief systems.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 17:46:10 GMT -5
Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. What Hat ~ After my recent posting on Page 22, I followed it with a paragraph which gave this disclaimer, which speaks for itself, if there is any confusion here? Not every church is geared towards being "high control groups," and belief in the Trinity or not doesn't necessarily define their standing. We are talking about "highly controlling behaviors" and not doctrine here. When a group feels its necessarily to orchestrate your life for you in a number of areas in order to conform to their standards and be considered approved, I would consider such a group to fall under this classification. Also, it appears that most of these groups that pursue such an agenda, also tend claim that their particular group is "the one and only way of salvation" and exclude other churches outside their group. According to the excerpt below, there are over 3,000 organizations in America alone that fit such descriptions and 10,000 globally. So, as you can see, legalism in all its forms is very much alive and well within a number of church groups today?
If you want to discuss the problems of 'legalism' I have no issue. Any church can have issues with legalism, Trinitarian or not. The problems of legalism is a great topic. But if you wish to imply that legalism = cult, then sorry, I don't agree. As I mentioned above, the sites you reference will call JWs a cult for being legalistic. But they don't Baptist churches cults for being legalistic, do they? And some of them are far more legalistic than JWs. In fact, JWs are not even remotely legalistic compared to many southern Baptists So, yes many of your lists don't mention theology at all. But there is no question that the authors behind the lists are very much using theology to decide their lines of attack.
I think where we need to be concerned about 'mind control' is when it leads individuals to actions which are destructive to themselves or destructive to others. Sorry, but I don't see that happening among the friends, at least as I have known them, in any systematic way. Actually, I see they've helped many individuals that have joined the group, and many of them have successful careers, healthy families and are net contributors to society. If that's 'mind control' then the country could use more of it. That's not to say there aren't issues. There are, but if mind control is the problem then I would begin with these groups: skinheads, white supremacists, radicalized Muslim youth, neo-Nazis, motorcyle gangs, gangsta culture, the social meme FHRITP and female abuse, the Mafia, the Tea Party, Young Earth Creationists and the KKK for 'mind control' issues, not necessarily in that order. Let's look at the indicators anyway. •leadership deserves strict, unquestioning obedience I haven't run into that. But we joined the group in our late 20s, and agreed with the principles and lifestyle of the group, so how would we know? I guess what you need to show is how the leadership might exercise coercion, undue influence, physical control. You know, the beatings will continue until morale improves. That kind of thing. •they alone are unique in teaching truth It's more the case, they have found the Truth and are the only ones that happen to be teaching it. What does that have to do with "mind control" though? I think this is a concern with Scientology or PSI, groups that have a complete self-referential and self-contained system of belief which they have invented. The friends are a Christian group. A couple of things to remember: they have no literature and no creeds. Everything they preach, they tell you to read the Bible for yourself and verify it. This gives me some confidence the intentions are good. I have some concerns with what some of them preach, and the recent "Only way, only people" thread is a very good example. Kudos to whoever posted that. I agree with much of the critique on that thread, so no need to say more here. •salvation is only possible through association with the group This is true of Christianity in general, with the exception of the universalist Christians, which is what I am, incidentally. I don't find the friends a whole lot different than other churches in that regard. Sure, it is nice that if you're a Baptist you can worship with Reformed, United, Anglican, et cetera. But express an idea like "there is no Hell" and you're not welcome in any of them. No different than the friends in that regard. I've been told some very nasty things by mainstream Christians ... never anything like that by the friends. Friends aren't nasty, the way some Christians are, at least not to my experience. Check out the movie "Saved", which is mild compared to the reality. •dissenters must be strictly shunned I'm a dissenter and I haven't been shunned. Our social orbit has definitely changed, which is natural. I was at a funeral a few weeks ago, and almost shocked at the level of amity and warm greetings from many people we hadn't seen in ages. My wife and I still mean to send personal letters to some of the workers, so they understand we have no animosity to them, and have good memories of times together and are grateful for what they contributed to our family and our spiritual progress. I wish I could assure them that our salvation is not in danger, but unfortunately it's a trap for many of them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 18:00:15 GMT -5
It really means the most powerful Christians. In the USA, evangelical Protestants. In Spain, Catholics. Basically, mainstream Christians have political influence, their own post-secondary institutions, an immersive ideology and books, art and culture to go with it. What Hat ~ Shouldn't mainline Christianity actually be defined by what is generally believed to be Christian beliefs among the majority of churches who consider themselves a part of the body of Christ? When you used the teachings of scripture and compare the teachings of these aberrant groups to the same, you definitely notice a difference in what is stressed as doctrinal beliefs along with all the rules of conformity that are very much a part of these "high control" belief systems. I don't consider a "high control" belief system - whether that's Old Order Mennonites, friends or whoever you care to name. I consider it a "high committment" belief system. Think of yoga. If you're going to benefit from yoga, it's going to take hard work, classes, committment. It can become a "high control" system when the teacher has to kick you out when you misbehave and act up in class. That being said, in your case, you didn't act up, but the teacher didn't like you for some reason. That's the problem with a high committment system. There's usually someone there who has a lot of power ... no problem when exercise judiciously and to the benefit of the entire class. But giving someone that much power also opens the system up for abuse. I don't see the friends are anything more than a kind of spiritual yoga, or karate, if you like. The only requirement is that they let you quit if you want without undue duress. That can be difficult if you are "born and raised" ... often the family of B&R ex's have been subject to coercive pressure when they were young and even as adults. Hard for the group to eliminate that, although I have heard preaching on it. It's quite difficult for parents to force children to profess, not that they might not try, but there is a lot of emphasis by workers on professing and later baptism as an individual choice. They preach many, many times not to take these steps to please parents or others. The ex's that have the toughest road to hoe are 3rd or 4th generation ex's with lots of friends and workers in their immediate and extended family. Can be a very difficult situation because you can't set your own distance, and have to constantly tend boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 10, 2015 18:30:58 GMT -5
This kind of circular reasoning can be used by any Christian group! (and usually is )
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 20:06:20 GMT -5
What Hat ~ If you were so pleased with the 2x2's and the workers ways of doing things, why did you leave in the first place? In most cases, people have good reasons for departing the 2x2's as you can see from the testimonials on Cherie's public TLC site. Do you thing people conjured up these reasons to justify their decision and none of it really applies? I realize some folks, like those involved in the Alberta, Canada excommunications in 1999, had no choice in the matter for following their conscience and not conforming to Wilis Propp's ridiculous demands, but many leave with good reasons that just accumulated over the years. I realize that's something from the past and some professing folks on here don't care to go there, but it's was a major part of reality in the lives of over 25 people, and some of the other folks were even workers who didn't approve of the overseer's abuse of power and were put out of the work or sent to another less pleasing locale. www.thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:why-we-left&Itemid=26 Why We Left? www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta Alberta, Canada Excommunications (1999)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 20:30:25 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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 21:11:10 GMT -5
What Hat ~ If you were so pleased with the 2x2's and the workers ways of doing things, why did you leave in the first place? In most cases, people have good reasons for departing the 2x2's as you can see from the testimonials on Cherie's public TLC site. Do you thing people conjured up these reasons to justify their decision and none of it really applies? I realize some folks, like those involved in the Alberta, Canada excommunications in 1999, had no choice in the matter for following their conscience and not conforming to Wilis Propp's ridiculous demands, but many leave with good reasons that just accumulated over the years. I realize that's something from the past and some on here don't care to go there, but it's was a major part of reality in the lives of over 25 people, and some of 25 people and some of them were even workers who didn't approve of the overseer's abuse of power. www.thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:why-we-left&Itemid=26 www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta No I don't think they conjured up their reasons. Because you need everyone to have a bad experience to validate your ideas, doesn't mean I need everyone to have a good experience to validate mine. Keep in mind for every ex- who writes a negative testimonial about the friends, there are 10 more for which their exit was a non-event.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 21:19:36 GMT -5
What Hat ~ If you were so pleased with the 2x2's and the workers ways of doing things, why did you leave in the first place? In most cases, people have good reasons for departing the 2x2's as you can see from the testimonials on Cherie's public TLC site. Do you thing people conjured up these reasons to justify their decision and none of it really applies? I realize some folks, like those involved in the Alberta, Canada excommunications in 1999, had no choice in the matter for following their conscience and not conforming to Wilis Propp's ridiculous demands, but many leave with good reasons that just accumulated over the years. I realize that's something from the past and some on here don't care to go there, but it's was a major part of reality in the lives of over 25 people, and some of 25 people and some of them were even workers who didn't approve of the overseer's abuse of power. www.thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:why-we-left&Itemid=26 www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta No I don't think they conjured up their reasons. Because you need everyone to have a bad experience to validate your ideas, doesn't mean I need everyone to have a good experience to validate mine. Keep in mind for every ex- who writes a negative testimonial about the friends, there are 10 more for which their exit was a non-event. What Hat ~ Honestly, I don't know of any ex-members of the 2x2's who considered their exit a "non-event" in their life, especially those who wrote Exit Letters relating to their experience within the 2x2's. Perhaps you can share what motivated your own exit from the 2x2's and whether or not you considered it a non-event in your own life? This is not something you often see in outside churches when folks leave one church and move on to another congregation. Obviously, something motivated them to tell their story as well as to write books about their experiences?
www.thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:why-we-left&Itemid=26 Why We Left?
www.thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205:books-to-read-about-2x2s-on-line&catid=18:recommendations&Itemid=12 Books to Read About the 2x2's
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jun 10, 2015 21:30:00 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
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 21:47:45 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 Alvin ~ Same here! My sojourn within the 2x2's affected my life in a number of ways, some of which I relayed in my Story (May 2011) and Exit Letter (August 1997) on Cherie's TLC site, written two years after my exit. In addition, the stories of young folks who were B&R and left the 2x2's in their teens to early 30's also reflect the struggles they went through in exiting the group on another Facebook site I'm a member entitled, "The Secret World of Truth." There seems to be a familiar ring of discontent that is shared within their life experiences as a member of the 2x2 fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:00:03 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.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 22:05:38 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. 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? It also sounds like the workers aren't doing a very good job of evangelizing among their own members' children as well as the outside world?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:08:38 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 Alvin ~ Same here! My sojourn within the 2x2's affected my life in a number of ways, some of which I relayed in my Story (May 2011) and Exit Letter (August 1997) on Cherie's TLC site, written two years after my exit. In addition, the stories of young folks who were B&R and left the 2x2's in their teens to early 30's also reflect the struggles they went through in exiting the group on another Facebook site I'm a member entitled, "The Secret World of Truth." There seems to be a familiar ring of discontent that is shared within their life experiences as a member of the 2x2 fellowship. Talk about circular reasoning, Faune. Refer to your diagram above. 1. All the ex-friends I know post on a Facebook group. 2. Everyone posting on the Facebook group had a negative experience. 3. All the ex-friends I know had a negative experience. Of course, all the ex-friends you know had a negative experience because you met them all on a Facebook group where people post with negative experiences. What about the ex-friends who don't bother to post on that Facebook group or on the TMB. There's maybe 100 ex-friends that post on the Internet and I figure maybe 50 to 100,000 ex-friends, based on one person out of the group for every person in the group.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 10, 2015 22:10:55 GMT -5
Perhaps for everyone that leaving was a non event there's 10 who it was.
Many kids raised in professing homes who never professed experience the same feelings as those who did profess. The biggest event was being raised in a professing home.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:18:02 GMT -5
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:20:44 GMT -5
Perhaps for everyone that leaving was a non event there's 10 who it was. Many kids raised in professing homes who never professed experience the same feelings as those who did profess. The biggest event was being raised in a professing home. I can only go by the ones I know, and only the past couple of decades. And we're not talking about the impact of "being raised in a professing home". We're talking about the supposed traumatization resulting from the exit experience.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 22:22:51 GMT -5
Alvin ~ Same here! My sojourn within the 2x2's affected my life in a number of ways, some of which I relayed in my Story (May 2011) and Exit Letter (August 1997) on Cherie's TLC site, written two years after my exit. In addition, the stories of young folks who were B&R and left the 2x2's in their teens to early 30's also reflect the struggles they went through in exiting the group on another Facebook site I'm a member entitled, "The Secret World of Truth." There seems to be a familiar ring of discontent that is shared within their life experiences as a member of the 2x2 fellowship. Talk about circular reasoning, Faune. Refer to your diagram above. 1. All the ex-friends I know post on a Facebook group. 2. Everyone posting on the Facebook group had a negative experience. 3. All the ex-friends I know had a negative experience. Of course, all the ex-friends you know had a negative experience because you met them all on a Facebook group where people post with negative experiences. What about the ex-friends who don't bother to post on that Facebook group or on the TMB. There's maybe 100 ex-friends that post on the Internet and I figure maybe 50 to 100,000 ex-friends, based on one person out of the group for every person in the group. What Hat ~ The fact that so many young folks choose not to join the group and leave its influence behind them when leaving home should speak for itself, IMHO? No circular reasoning here ~ just deductive reasoning from the statistics. The fact that they may face a "lost eternity" for rejecting the "one and only way of salvation" doesn't seem to resonate very well with the young B&R's either?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:31:11 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'.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:33:37 GMT -5
Talk about circular reasoning, Faune. Refer to your diagram above. 1. All the ex-friends I know post on a Facebook group. 2. Everyone posting on the Facebook group had a negative experience. 3. All the ex-friends I know had a negative experience. Of course, all the ex-friends you know had a negative experience because you met them all on a Facebook group where people post with negative experiences. What about the ex-friends who don't bother to post on that Facebook group or on the TMB. There's maybe 100 ex-friends that post on the Internet and I figure maybe 50 to 100,000 ex-friends, based on one person out of the group for every person in the group. What Hat ~ The fact that so many young folks choose not to join the group and leave its influence behind them when leaving home should speak for itself, IMHO? No circular reasoning here ~ just deductive reasoning from the statistics. The fact that they may face a "lost eternity" for rejecting the "one and only way of salvation" doesn't seem to resonate very well with the young B&R's today? 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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 22:44:39 GMT -5
Our own exit experience wasn't easy and we had an entire thread on the subject at the time. It took a few months to debrief afterward. But we had 30 good years prior to exiting, and we're still in a small discussion/ worship group now, so in terms of spiritual development exiting was a positive. The time right around our exit was not easy, as I've said, but the prior years I look back on with fondness. Had they not been that way I would have left much sooner. Why would I stay as an adult for 30 years in a group if it wasn't a positive and beneficial experience? That would make no sense whatsoever. When I look over the last decade our exit is well down the list of traumatic events, when I think of parents and other dear relatives and friends having died, adjusting through various business difficulties, various diseases and also cancer affecting family members. This just wasn't such a big deal. Sorry, but that's how it is. You asked me, so I told you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2015 23:21:30 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.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 11, 2015 0:36:07 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.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2015 1:32:43 GMT -5
What Hat ~ The fact that so many young folks choose not to join the group and leave its influence behind them when leaving home should speak for itself, IMHO? No circular reasoning here ~ just deductive reasoning from the statistics. The fact that they may face a "lost eternity" for rejecting the "one and only way of salvation" doesn't seem to resonate very well with the young B&R's today? 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.
|
|