Another gentleman who once posted on this site, has observed that the manner in which one leaves the JC's (or other cult like situations)...greatly impacts on the "impressions" one retains of the experience....I endeavour to (and encourage others to) remain as positive as possible about the influences God may have been able to bear on ones life (Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose"), while in the JesusChristians, yet at the same time acknowledging that David McKay is an arrogant fraud, who has prostituted scriptures and deliberately manipulated the impressionable or vulnerable, for his own self-glorification.

I cannot think of many "cheerful departures" from McKay's empire...hence that experience alone should suffice to deter any "wishful thinking" about McKay or the future of the JC's in general....Everyone has the right to draw their own conclusions, from their experiences in the JC's...however I am unreasonably dogmatic enough to believe that "conclusions" need to be occasionaly verified with recourse to observations in reality.

I'm still going to hold to the "unravelling" of the cult within a 12-18 month timeframe from it's "implosion" in November 2010 (increasingly less reference to McKay, fragmentation, recruitment activity ceases, some preliminary "re-engagement" with friends and family)

It was you, yourself, Zeuszor who predicted that the McKay's would end up as "grey nomads"....

"Wishful thinking" (I will term it....as it incorporates the need to placate McKay) that a "happy ending" for either McKay or his empire can be obtained if we just condescend to "accommodate" David in some "small way".....has not to my knowledge produced an iota of genuine change in the man, (I challenge anyone to provide an example) and, as you intimate Zeuszor, to my mind, merely complicates losing the psychological paradgims of the cult, that all of us, who committed to McKay have one way or another, acquired....

I would prefer not to comment on "personalities" in the xjc crowd, as I have met very few of them, face-to-face, down the years...however, it would seem to me, that those that purposely eschew contact with either myself, you, Apollo or Stoic because we say the "wrong things" and thus make "communication" with McKay problematic....are actually making more of a comment about themselves than they are about "us"....

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
It was you, yourself, Zeuszor who predicted that the McKay's would end up as "grey nomads"....

Yeah, well, I'd rather see them be a couple of grey convicts, or a couple of grey probationers, instead of allowed to go on their cruise and then disappear into the sunset like grey nomads. Thanks, XJCs!

Quote
MWW
"Wishful thinking" (I will term it....as it incorporates the need to placate McKay) that a "happy ending" for either McKay or his empire can be obtained if we just condescend to "accommodate" David in some "small way".....has not to my knowledge produced an iota of genuine change in the man, (I challenge anyone to provide an example) and, as you intimate Zeuszor, to my mind, merely complicates losing the psychological paradgims of the cult, that all of us, who committed to McKay have one way or another, acquired....

Yeah, as you know I always thought that the concession-and-appeasement strategy was a really bad idea, and always told them so. And see how things worked out? I for one don't see why this ought to be encouraged or congratulated, either. How was that so "brave"? They got away. And furthermore, I always thought that were (are) basically non-consciously recreating their respective roles in the old group, in a new and present situational context and that that was and is not appropriate behavior. Know what I mean, Mal? Hammer/nail and all that. Makes me sick, it does. A damn cruise. At least if he'd wound up on probation, then they'd be monitored by the law on some angle. Thanks, guys!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2011 07:32AM by zeuszor.

That IS a very interesting hypothesis, about individuals subconsciously "recreating" roles for themselves.....! Jung's archetypes revisited?

I agree with you that I would have much prefered to have seen formal charges and sentencing....as the inability to press charges, only enables further "David McKay's" to operate, all over again......the current "David McKay" is washed up....but in some senses, "washed up" for the wrong reasons....(the inablity to create an organization that would live on without his immediate direction.....and increasingly feeble minded McKay simply not up to providing "immediate direction" simply due to the vagaries of old age...hence the "cult" discarded to it's own ends)....a "legislative" basis to some additional Administrative or Criminal statutes, that would impact upon him with some immediacy, are really necessary in my opinion....

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
That IS a very interesting hypothesis, about individuals subconsciously "recreating" roles for themselves.....! Jung's archetypes revisited?

They're still in the psychological framework of the dysfunctional family/cult, and therefore they cannot see the big picture of protecting the public interest through somehow getting DM taken off the streets. Does that make sense? Still trying to seek Daddy's approval, after all this time. Sad.

Quote
MWW
I agree with you that I would have much prefered to have seen formal charges and sentencing....as the inability to press charges, only enables further "David McKay's" to operate, all over again......the current "David McKay" is washed up....but in some senses, "washed up" for the wrong reasons....(the inablity to create an organization that would live on without his immediate direction.....and increasingly feeble minded McKay simply not up to providing "immediate direction" simply due to the vagaries of old age...hence the "cult" discarded to it's own ends)....a "legislative" basis to some additional Administrative or Criminal statutes, that would impact upon him with some immediacy, are really necessary in my opinion....

At least if he were on probation or something, he'd be monitored and his activities would be limited. But nooo..."parental substitution" huh?

That statement was just plain dumb. Some substitute. Just ask Joe's mom maybe, or Trevor's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2011 07:32PM by zeuszor.

Here's the latest from one of the graduates who now claims to be a ''pastor''.

[www.jesuschristians.com]

At least if he were on probation or something, he'd be monitored and his activities would be limited. But nooo..."parental substitution" huh?

That statement was just plain dumb. Some substitute. Just ask Joe's mom maybe, or Trevor's.

Zeuszor, I can't believe you're still going on about that, change the record. You should try and concentrate on the positive things Kate has brought to the table rather than a throwaway comment she made some months ago. If you look through her history you'll find hundreds of posts where she condemns Dave McKay. She's also appeared on a couple of documentaries and helped create a forum.

Well, when they end up recruiting another kid (or worse) it's not going to be because I didn't do my damnest to try and prevent it.

I reserve the right to express whatever I wish here, within the bounds of the rules of this forum. As a matter of fact, I feel like my recent comments are very much on topic and really hit on the heart of the matter: are we trying to stop DM and his consort once and for all, or not?

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
That IS a very interesting hypothesis, about individuals subconsciously "recreating" roles for themselves.....! Jung's archetypes revisited?

Yes. Translating their old roles, unconsciously re-creating them in a new and different situational context. Too much in the old psychological paradigm, IMO, to be able to see the new and big picture.

Quote
zeuszor
Well, when they end up recruiting another kid (or worse) it's not going to be because I didn't do my damnest to try and prevent it.

So you'll be holding Kate personally responsible (because of that one line) if that does happen? Jeezo! lol

Quote
zeuszor
I reserve the right to express whatever I wish here, within the bounds of the rules of this forum. As a matter of fact, I feel like my recent comments are very much on topic and really hit on the heart of the matter: are we trying to stop DM and his consort once and for all, or not?

No need to get all defensive. I just think you're beating a dead horse with this one. Going over and over it isn't really achieving anything. It was a misguided comment to make but I don't think the woman deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered over it.

Apart from that, loving your work! ;-)

That'll go down (the "substitution" comment) in my mind as one of the more asinine statements coming from the XJC camp, along with "Cherry is as much a victim as anyone else who has chosen to submit their lives to Dave's control."

No. This is illogical. Cherry's not a "victim" in that case, she's made a decision for which she ought to be held personally accountable. She's not a victim of anybody. She's as much a perpetrator now as her husband is.

They let him get away. It galls me. I hope they remember that if and when the McKays get somebody else's kid.

Have a nice day.