Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
cait
()
Date: April 29, 2007 06:13AM
Quote
ashwynIn fact, I would have thought this to be a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ash, you're with Dave 24/7 these days - how many hours a day would he spend [b:def03de3b4]away [/b:def03de3b4]from his computer? How often would you hear him refer to any ex-member as clever, lovable or admirable in any way?Quote
rrmoderator
Calling McKay's critics "foolish," "hateful" and then claiming that they "hide behind a computer screen" seems to fit within an "attack on the character...personal qualities of the opposition."I would have thought all of the above and much more.Quote
ashwyn
I am a little confused, and perhaps I have missed something here. What is the actual purpose that this thread exists for? Is it for people to support each other after coming out of cults? Is it to expose bad practices amongst the Jesus Christians, and encourage them to change? Or is it to 'debate' something (perhaps whether or not there is anything wrong with the Jesus Christians.)I would suggest as an individual Ash, that the term "dealing with", more than anything means finding ways to cope with and rise above the secrecy, lies, jibes, sneers, and personal attacks which seem to be characteristic of much of Dave's writings as they relate to ex-members or the friends and families of current members. Preserving one's own sanity in the face of it, and seeking ways to encourage him to turn to more productive and positive behaviour models are the goals.Quote
ashwyn
This is an honest question, and I am particularly interested in what is meant by 'dealing' with Dave McKay's bad behaviour. Do you mean encouraging him to change it, or do you merely mean dicussing and analysing it?
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: April 29, 2007 08:50AM
Some reading I thought to share as I think they are relevant to what takes place when joining the JC's.
"It is strange but true that he who preaches brotherly love also preaches against love of mother, father, brother, sister, wife and children. The Chinese sage Mo-Tsu who advocated brotherly love was rightly condemned by the Confucionists who cherished the family above all. They argued that the priniciple of universal love would dissolve the family and destroy society. The proselitizer who comes and says 'follow me' is a family wrecker, even though he is not conscious of any hostility toward the family and has not least intention of weakening its solidarity. When St. Bernard preached, his influence was such that 'mothers are said to have hid their sons from him, and wives their husbands, lest he should lure them away. He actually broke up so many homes that the abandoned wives formed a nunnery."
"It is true that the adherents of a rising movement have a strong sense of liberation even though they live and breathe in an atsmosphere of strict adherence to tenets and commands. This sense of liberation comes from having escaped the burdens, fears, and hopelessness of an untenable individual existance. It is this escape which they feel as a deliverance and redemption. The experience of vast change, too, conveys a sense of freedom, even though the changes are executed in a frame of strict discipline. Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, 'to be free from freedom'. It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank and file Nazi's declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement to be free from responsibility?"
(SOURCE: Hoffer, E. 2002, "The true beleiver, thoughts on the nature of mass movements. isbn: 0-06-050591-5) First published 1951.
"It is strange but true that he who preaches brotherly love also preaches against love of mother, father, brother, sister, wife and children. The Chinese sage Mo-Tsu who advocated brotherly love was rightly condemned by the Confucionists who cherished the family above all. They argued that the priniciple of universal love would dissolve the family and destroy society. The proselitizer who comes and says 'follow me' is a family wrecker, even though he is not conscious of any hostility toward the family and has not least intention of weakening its solidarity. When St. Bernard preached, his influence was such that 'mothers are said to have hid their sons from him, and wives their husbands, lest he should lure them away. He actually broke up so many homes that the abandoned wives formed a nunnery."
"It is true that the adherents of a rising movement have a strong sense of liberation even though they live and breathe in an atsmosphere of strict adherence to tenets and commands. This sense of liberation comes from having escaped the burdens, fears, and hopelessness of an untenable individual existance. It is this escape which they feel as a deliverance and redemption. The experience of vast change, too, conveys a sense of freedom, even though the changes are executed in a frame of strict discipline. Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, 'to be free from freedom'. It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank and file Nazi's declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement to be free from responsibility?"
(SOURCE: Hoffer, E. 2002, "The true beleiver, thoughts on the nature of mass movements. isbn: 0-06-050591-5) First published 1951.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
ashwyn
()
Date: April 29, 2007 11:19AM
Dear Malcolm,
Thanks for your post. I do understand that you have been in my position, and have decided that it wasn't one where you felt comfortable. I am fine with that. Needless to say I have not come to the same personal conviction as you have. I recognise that whether I am in or out of the JCs does not affect what I can or cannot do, it is merely my personal judgement that I am more supported in the things that I feel led to do for God inside the JCs.
Yes, there have been a great many things that have been happening for a lot longer than I've been alive, but I hope that doesn't mean I can't have an effect on them :) The example that you gave is one of those things that happened before my time. I don't really see the point in asking Dave what happened if you don't accept his account. Perhaps you could elaborate from your personal experience as to what you think is unethical about what happened in Medowie or with the Catholics?
As for your question about why the Quakers were "just so many “brain-dead” churchies" during your time in the JCs, I am not sure that they were considered so. We JCs certainly don't currently teach that people are judged on the basis of their organisational affiliation, but rather their personal relationship with God. Do you disagree with this assesment?
These two examples seem to be a good place to start the analysis. I still think that you would benefit from laying off the morbid humour. Noone is paranoid that you really are a closet assassin, but when someone keeps making jokes (scriptural or not) about murder, it does obstruct positive, constructive dialogue.
Thanks for your post. I do understand that you have been in my position, and have decided that it wasn't one where you felt comfortable. I am fine with that. Needless to say I have not come to the same personal conviction as you have. I recognise that whether I am in or out of the JCs does not affect what I can or cannot do, it is merely my personal judgement that I am more supported in the things that I feel led to do for God inside the JCs.
Yes, there have been a great many things that have been happening for a lot longer than I've been alive, but I hope that doesn't mean I can't have an effect on them :) The example that you gave is one of those things that happened before my time. I don't really see the point in asking Dave what happened if you don't accept his account. Perhaps you could elaborate from your personal experience as to what you think is unethical about what happened in Medowie or with the Catholics?
As for your question about why the Quakers were "just so many “brain-dead” churchies" during your time in the JCs, I am not sure that they were considered so. We JCs certainly don't currently teach that people are judged on the basis of their organisational affiliation, but rather their personal relationship with God. Do you disagree with this assesment?
These two examples seem to be a good place to start the analysis. I still think that you would benefit from laying off the morbid humour. Noone is paranoid that you really are a closet assassin, but when someone keeps making jokes (scriptural or not) about murder, it does obstruct positive, constructive dialogue.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
matilda
()
Date: April 29, 2007 11:24AM
Good book Apostate. Did you [b:e9208de8f5]'join[/b:e9208de8f5]' the JC's? Were you aware of all their beliefs before you gave up all your ambitions and dreams to become a member? OR were you unwittingly [b:e9208de8f5]seduced and recruited[/b:e9208de8f5] by a glib conman who persuaded you that your entire family were your worst enemies and that the world would hate you because of your commitment?
It can be difficult for ex members, especially ex leaders and long term members, to admit to themselves that they were totally deceived and speak up about what they know. Some never do. Groups often work very hard to persuade them into believing that they are totally and completely responsible for everything that happens to them even when they are clearly pressured. The group is never responsible. Meanwhile, it maintains their membership by inducing a warped view of reality and isolating members in various ways from outside influences.
Here is a non religious warped view recruits were seduced into by a cunning conman.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
It can be difficult for ex members, especially ex leaders and long term members, to admit to themselves that they were totally deceived and speak up about what they know. Some never do. Groups often work very hard to persuade them into believing that they are totally and completely responsible for everything that happens to them even when they are clearly pressured. The group is never responsible. Meanwhile, it maintains their membership by inducing a warped view of reality and isolating members in various ways from outside influences.
Here is a non religious warped view recruits were seduced into by a cunning conman.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: April 29, 2007 02:09PM
Quote
matildaQuote
Did you [b:825b024c27]'join[/b:825b024c27]' the JC's? Were you aware of all their beliefs before you gave up all your ambitions and dreams to become a member? OR were you unwittingly [b:825b024c27]seduced and recruited[/b:825b024c27] by a glib conman who persuaded you that your entire family were your worst enemies and that the world would hate you because of your commitment?
I joined the JC's because they were going in the same direction I was. I was interested in their free work programs because I saw that as meeting ideals I believed in. I was not aware of ALL their beliefs when I joined as that would have entailed too much effort. I liked the camaradarie that was represented within the group and enjoyed the appeal to my ego their beliefs that they were "elect" and "chosen" "children of Abraham" gave to me. I became a prisoner of the poorly formed ideals of my youth.
The perspective the JC's espouse teaches that the world "will hate you" because of their committment to following what they think are Jesus teachings. It is not long before disagreement expressed by outsiders becomes translated as hatred by insiders, and then from there it is only a small step to imagine that such individuals have "murder in their hearts".
I allowed myself to become seduced by what was on offer. I have to take my share of responsibility in this. It is true that once you are inside the group it is difficult to stand against the peer pressure that surfaces, especially with such things as dole fraud when they make it sound so good by equating themselves with birds that fly down and steal from the farmers crop. It all sounds good on the surface, but when looked at critically it is quite a selfish callous way to live.Quote
It can be difficult for ex members, especially ex leaders and long term members, to admit to themselves that they were totally deceived and speak up about what they know. Some never do. Groups often work very hard to persuade them into believing that they are totally and completely responsible for everything that happens to them even when they are clearly pressured. The group is never responsible. Meanwhile, it maintains their membership by inducing a warped view of reality and isolating members in various ways from outside influences.
I agree with what you say here Matilda. I now see that I was totally and completely deceived in a lot of things I used to believe, but I also see that there were factors at work within my life that made me a prime candidate to be vulnerable to such things. I was like a babe in a new city and experienced city slickers saw me get off that bus and quickly convinced me that they knew the way around town, but I also see that they too had the same experience initially. After I was toosed out of the group it took me several years to get my head back and to be able to challenge the lies I used to believe because in doing so it was like I was fighting against "god" himself, something I know to be nonsense.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
matilda
()
Date: April 29, 2007 08:13PM
Quote
apostate
I joined the JC's because they were going in the same direction I was. I was interested in their free work programs because I saw that as meeting ideals I believed in. I was not aware of ALL their beliefs when I joined as that would have entailed too much effort.[/color:a169881b9c] I liked the camaradarie that was represented within the group and enjoyed the appeal to my ego their beliefs that they were "elect" and "chosen" "children of Abraham" gave to me. I became a prisoner of the poorly formed ideals of my youth.
Yes Apostate but Dave was aware of ALL his beliefs and the consequences they would eventually have in your life. He had ALL the information and choose not to impart that to you because , to use your metaphor, you would have got [i:a169881b9c]back on that bus or found your own way around town[/i:a169881b9c]. You were slowly drip fed. The [i:a169881b9c]experienced city slickers[/i:a169881b9c] had the same experience initially, were equally deceived by a spiritual conman who engaged them in reinforcing the web of deceit. They prove themselves to Dave by recruiting others or collecting donations and are rewarded within the group when they do this. Everyone of us needs to feel special in some way and the friendly faces of the equally deceived provide that invitation into the web that Dave continually spins.
There are ethical religious groups who insist that new members are aware of ALL of their main tenets before joining. They have nothing to hide. Their members do not need to avoid family and friends because of some Dave who is afraid of their influence. If Ash had joined such a group, he would not be [i:a169881b9c]holed up in a hotel room in Canada [/i:a169881b9c] now with Dave. He may still have made a free decision to donate but his family and friends would be there to support him.
On the donation situation
Is the hospital involved aware of Dave's insatiable craving for media coverage, the present plans for a documentary coinciding conveniently with another organ donation?
Are they aware that many critics of the group support/ have no objection to organ donations outside of the JC's ?
That Dave dismisses ex members traumas, concern and need for mutual support as gossip.
That Dave is considered to be a serial bully.
Are they aware that the JC teaching that[i:a169881b9c]you do not do your good deeds in public[/i:a169881b9c] is in direct contradiction to the media coverage Dave arranged during the Kidneys for Jesus filming? Dave chooses to cite that teaching whenever he is asked about charity work or where the proceeds from members inheritances or forsaken property go. He chooses to cite that teaching when he wants to hide things. The teaching is placed neatly back on the peg when Dave's craving for attention takes over and demands feeding. Then the JC teaching conveniently changes to [i:a169881b9c]do your good deeds in a glare of publicity.
[/i:a169881b9c]
Normal intelligent people can see the contradiction here and young intelligent idealistic people like Ash would have spotted it from 10k before they became members. Before they got [i:a169881b9c]holed up in a hotel room[/i:a169881b9c] with a man who reconstructs their lives inside his web and keeps them very busy during the process.
Have you noticed his need to collectively demonise us ( and all critics) using a convenient label that trips that critical thinking switch to OFF. This new term added to that growing list of short curcuiting labels used in the group serves that purpose [i:a169881b9c]Dave haters[/i:a169881b9c] that is what they call us. Dave who teaches members to be open to criticism and correction is trying to dead bat the valid criticisms raised here Dave should clarify Either the [i:a169881b9c]Lord corrects those he loves[/i:a169881b9c] OR [i:a169881b9c]Anyone who corrects Dave is a Dave hater
[/i:a169881b9c] You can not have it both ways. If the first premise holds true, then by preaching the second, Dave could infer that the Lord is a [i:a169881b9c]Dave hater[/i:a169881b9c] According to Dave, God can use many different ways to correct us, remember? Even use a RR website. We are not Dave haters but we do hate many of the things he does which damage peoples lives.
Another interesting article for comparison about the conman who choose a spy scenario to create his web of deceit.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
cultmalleus
()
Date: April 29, 2007 08:46PM
Matilda,
Those articles are chilling and very relevant. Dave is not quite as expert as Hendy-Freegard but the techniques and responses have many similarities. It shows how emotionally vulnerable people can be manipulated no matter how intelligent they are.
Those articles are chilling and very relevant. Dave is not quite as expert as Hendy-Freegard but the techniques and responses have many similarities. It shows how emotionally vulnerable people can be manipulated no matter how intelligent they are.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
matilda
()
Date: April 30, 2007 12:07AM
Cultmalleus said
Matilda,
Those articles are chilling and very relevant. Dave is not quite as expert as Hendy-Freegard but the techniques and responses have many similarities. It shows how emotionally vulnerable people can be manipulated no matter how intelligent they are.[/color:bd35c05c93]
Yes Cultmalleus, they are chilling. Emotional vulnerability is a universal condition occurring at some point or other in everyones life. Predators have an uncanny knack of spotting the moment.
Whether Dave is as expert as HendyFreegard, is debatable. It depends on what criteria you use to make a judgement. Is it the number of victims, the duration of the trauma, the monetary and material cost, the traumatic cost to the individual, the traumatic cost to all involved, the plausibility of his story, the possibility of detection, the outcome or none of the above? Are they in any way comparable at all and if so how do you compare? Here is a very rushed attempt which may or may not make any sense at all. Lets try it and chew a bit on the outcomes.
X employed isolation and induced a fear of the mortal world.
Y employs isolation, fear of the mortal world and of eternal damnation
X methods included creating a dependence, destabilising the individuals sense of identity, encouraging physical severance with past, setting tests and trials, gradually handing over material possessions
Y's methods include creating a dependence, destabilising the individuals sense of identity, encouraging physical and emotional severance with past, setting tests and trials, forsaking all
X's message said M15/ X wants you and commands you to ..
Y's message says God and God's appointed commands that you....
X's victims believe they would gain romance, love or become part of the M15 elite, saving their country from terrorists
Y's followers believe that they will gain eternal salvation, become part of God's ruling elite, slaughtering and dominating the world
X did NOT use physical restraint
Y does NOT use physical restraint
X demanded loyalty, time, money, commitment, determination
Y demands loyalty, time, all material goods,, commitment, determination and pressure to become a [i:bd35c05c93]living sacrifice[/i:bd35c05c93] organ donation.
X Duration of domination 10 years max
Y Duration of domination 20 years plus
X Story occurs in natural world and is verifiable or falsifiable
Y Story involves natural and supernatural element and is not verifiable or falsifiable
X is in prison
Y is free
What can we conclude?
X is more expert OR Y is more expert
X is more dangerous OR Y is more dangerous
X's victims would be horrified that Y's victims went so far to express their loyalty and consider X a nicer person than Y
Y's victims would be horrified that X's victims went so far to express their loyalty and consider Y a safer person than X
Chanting in the background the W's ' It would NEVER happen to me! !'[/color:bd35c05c93]
Matilda,
Those articles are chilling and very relevant. Dave is not quite as expert as Hendy-Freegard but the techniques and responses have many similarities. It shows how emotionally vulnerable people can be manipulated no matter how intelligent they are.[/color:bd35c05c93]
Yes Cultmalleus, they are chilling. Emotional vulnerability is a universal condition occurring at some point or other in everyones life. Predators have an uncanny knack of spotting the moment.
Whether Dave is as expert as HendyFreegard, is debatable. It depends on what criteria you use to make a judgement. Is it the number of victims, the duration of the trauma, the monetary and material cost, the traumatic cost to the individual, the traumatic cost to all involved, the plausibility of his story, the possibility of detection, the outcome or none of the above? Are they in any way comparable at all and if so how do you compare? Here is a very rushed attempt which may or may not make any sense at all. Lets try it and chew a bit on the outcomes.
X employed isolation and induced a fear of the mortal world.
Y employs isolation, fear of the mortal world and of eternal damnation
X methods included creating a dependence, destabilising the individuals sense of identity, encouraging physical severance with past, setting tests and trials, gradually handing over material possessions
Y's methods include creating a dependence, destabilising the individuals sense of identity, encouraging physical and emotional severance with past, setting tests and trials, forsaking all
X's message said M15/ X wants you and commands you to ..
Y's message says God and God's appointed commands that you....
X's victims believe they would gain romance, love or become part of the M15 elite, saving their country from terrorists
Y's followers believe that they will gain eternal salvation, become part of God's ruling elite, slaughtering and dominating the world
X did NOT use physical restraint
Y does NOT use physical restraint
X demanded loyalty, time, money, commitment, determination
Y demands loyalty, time, all material goods,, commitment, determination and pressure to become a [i:bd35c05c93]living sacrifice[/i:bd35c05c93] organ donation.
X Duration of domination 10 years max
Y Duration of domination 20 years plus
X Story occurs in natural world and is verifiable or falsifiable
Y Story involves natural and supernatural element and is not verifiable or falsifiable
X is in prison
Y is free
What can we conclude?
X is more expert OR Y is more expert
X is more dangerous OR Y is more dangerous
X's victims would be horrified that Y's victims went so far to express their loyalty and consider X a nicer person than Y
Y's victims would be horrified that X's victims went so far to express their loyalty and consider Y a safer person than X
Chanting in the background the W's ' It would NEVER happen to me! !'[/color:bd35c05c93]
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
ashwyn
()
Date: April 30, 2007 04:44AM
Hi Matilda,
I understand that you feel that there are strong similarities between becoming a member of the JCs, and being a victim of this conman. I personally feel that the representation of the situation would be inadequate unless certain clear differences were highlighted also. For example:
X convinced people to take out large loans on the pretext that he would pay them back.
Y convinces people never to take out loans unless you have the money to pay them back. He does not own any posessions, but shares all things in common with the people portrayed as his victims. He has never told anyone that money that they give to the common purse would be refunded.
X used the money he stole to buy expensive cars and finance trips around the world.
Y is part of a community which uses its money sparingly, and for the promotion of a common cause.
X had illicit affairs with married and unmarried women.
Y has been happily married to one woman for 45 years, and none of his critics have ever raised doubts as to his faithfulness.
X appealed to people's sexual desires and greed to acheive his ends.
Y appeals to people's idealism to acheive his ends, which are statedly to promote the teachings of Jesus (i.e. against greed.)
I really have to question why extreme comparisons continue to be made between Dave and people such as this conman, or the Virginia Tech gunman? Surely it would lend more credibility to the comparisions if the subjects chosen were more similar in nature, motivation, or actions?
I understand that you feel that there are strong similarities between becoming a member of the JCs, and being a victim of this conman. I personally feel that the representation of the situation would be inadequate unless certain clear differences were highlighted also. For example:
X convinced people to take out large loans on the pretext that he would pay them back.
Y convinces people never to take out loans unless you have the money to pay them back. He does not own any posessions, but shares all things in common with the people portrayed as his victims. He has never told anyone that money that they give to the common purse would be refunded.
X used the money he stole to buy expensive cars and finance trips around the world.
Y is part of a community which uses its money sparingly, and for the promotion of a common cause.
X had illicit affairs with married and unmarried women.
Y has been happily married to one woman for 45 years, and none of his critics have ever raised doubts as to his faithfulness.
X appealed to people's sexual desires and greed to acheive his ends.
Y appeals to people's idealism to acheive his ends, which are statedly to promote the teachings of Jesus (i.e. against greed.)
I really have to question why extreme comparisons continue to be made between Dave and people such as this conman, or the Virginia Tech gunman? Surely it would lend more credibility to the comparisions if the subjects chosen were more similar in nature, motivation, or actions?
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
matilda
()
Date: April 30, 2007 07:33AM
Quote
ashwyn
Hi Matilda,
I understand that you feel that there are strong similarities between becoming a member of the JCs, and being a victim of this conman. I personally feel that the representation of the situation would be inadequate unless certain clear differences were highlighted also. For example:
X convinced people to take out large loans on the pretext that he would pay them back.
Y convinces people never to take out loans unless you have the money to pay them back. He does not own any posessions, but shares all things in common with the people portrayed as his victims. He has never told anyone that money that they give to the common purse would be refunded.
X used the money he stole to buy expensive cars and finance trips around the world.
Y is part of a community which uses its money sparingly, and for the promotion of a common cause.
X had illicit affairs with married and unmarried women.
Y has been happily married to one woman for 45 years, and none of his critics have ever raised doubts as to his faithfulness.
X appealed to people's sexual desires and greed to acheive his ends.
Y appeals to people's idealism to acheive his ends, which are statedly to promote the teachings of Jesus (i.e. against greed.)
I really have to question why extreme comparisons continue to be made between Dave and people such as this conman, or the Virginia Tech gunman? Surely it would lend more credibility to the comparisions if the subjects chosen were more similar in nature, motivation, or actions?
Hi Ashwyn,
Thank you for responding here and adding to the overall comparision.
I agree with you on some points and especially that it would be interesting to compare subjects that you consider more similar in nature. Who would you suggest as a suitable subject to compare Dave with ?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.