In the interests of preserving what I have just posted on the JCs forum intact, I am also copying it here. This wouldn't be necessary if it were not for recent posts having clearly been edited and juggled round on that site.

Quoting Dave : [i:bc2d561f33]'This thread has been started to allow for communication between Jesus Christian members and their families, where normal channels of communication have been abused for various reasons (most often by extremely manipulative parents).'[/i:bc2d561f33]

Dave, your good intentions in creating this thread are much appreciated, as I hope my suggestions will be also.
I have taken the liberty of creating this topic, as I think it may be helpful to all if your advice and comments on the communications of others were offered from a short remove, and if you were also to refrain from re-locating or editing the posts of the intended contributors, whether they be JC or family members.[/color:bc2d561f33]

Quoting Dave : [i:bc2d561f33]'Some friends may consider this to be a backward step. However, this is being offered only as a final step toward more constructive communication, when relatives have shown an unwillingness to listen to what someone in the JCs is trying to say.'[/i:bc2d561f33]

Sorry, I must have overlooked this line before : [b:bc2d561f33][i:bc2d561f33]a final step[/i:bc2d561f33][/b:bc2d561f33]? : so then, I am not inaccurate in having stated that the current status quo is that Ashwyn will not contact me or permit contact by me other than via this forum?[/color:bc2d561f33]

Quoting Dave : [i:bc2d561f33] 'It is great to have happy families where everyone respects each other; however, not all families are like that. Families where children are abused, sexually, physically, and psychologically, still do what they can to convince neighbours and the general public that all is well, and that the only reason they are having difficulty in communicating is because some evil cult has intervened. Social workers who have dealt with dysfunctional families know all too well, that this [b:bc2d561f33]simplisitic[/b:bc2d561f33] approach usually denies reality, which is that serious problems existed long before any third party intervened.'[/i:bc2d561f33]

Notice how I did not correct your spelling of [b:bc2d561f33][i:bc2d561f33]'simplistic'[/i:bc2d561f33][/b:bc2d561f33]? On looking back over all the threads on this forum, I see many, many spelling errors. I've made them before, we all do. I've never found you to correct one before tho. Maybe you've just got a new dictionary, but equally, maybe you've recently had a humour bypass. I happen to believe that "Animousity" is a very cute and reasonably humourous word. If I invented it, I did it with a view to amusing others.

Btw, as far as I know, no families of Jesus Christian members have abused their children, nor required the intervention of social workers.[/color:bc2d561f33]

Quoting Dave : [i:bc2d561f33]'Through this thread, parents or other relatives can communicate with their relatives in the JCs, but other third parties (whether inside the JCs or outside) will not be allowed to post. These threads are not intended as free for alls, although we accept that others will be watching. Please do pray for the parties who are trying to develop better ways of communicating here. Hopefully the social pressures of having an audience will cause some relatives to work on improving their communication skills.'[/i:bc2d561f33]

Dave, your request for prayer is much appreciated, and while I would urge others to pray for yourself and all members of the community as well as for their/your families, I must ask : are you yourself not a third party? I do think you should apply the rule of JCs not posting on other members' threads to yourself, even in the circumstance of them "handing over to you", in their own best interests.
Ashwyn and Joseph are grown up : if they haven't already done so, they need to learn how to deal with their own emotions and to communicate on an adult level. If you do give in and do it for them, they may very well come to view you as a substitute father figure, which can only stunt their personal growth and development.

However I must also say that I disagree with your hopes for a positive outcome from the "public" model of conflict resolution. The only place I've heard of where that process has succeeded is with the poor old US POWs in N. Korea, and that tactic was known as Mind Control.

I continue to believe that Ashwyn and Joseph are much more likely to resolve any differences they may have with their families via direct and private dealings with them.[/color:bc2d561f33][b:bc2d561f33][/b:bc2d561f33][/color:bc2d561f33]

What a courageous post for cait to make, probably knowing full well she will probably have to bear the brunt of Dave's further actions and sanctions because of it.

I meant to comment previously on this quote of Dave's (if I can call him that):

Quote

Families where children are abused, sexually, physically, and psychologically, still do what they can to convince neighbours and the general public that all is well, and that the only reason they are having difficulty in communicating is because some evil cult has intervened.

The obvious inference he is making, regarding families of Jesus Christians, is outrageous. Even for him.

Who really is doing the slandering and trolling for muck?[/b]

Here is the man who set about attempting to destroy the marriages of his own sons (...when their wives proved to be "unworthy" of him by questioning his wisdom too often)...and then having ultimately told himself that he had "lost" his sons due to the "wiles" of these women,

...then set about "nipping" any future problems "in the bud" by overtly dismantling the relationships of any couples that may again threaten to "foment" rebellion in the ranks (with the mendacious fable, that they need to "forsake" their partners for "God"!!)...in the brazen hypocrisy that "leaders" in the Jesuschristians (those who have no other realistic options in their lives now, beyond ongoing servitude) may be entitled to be considered "mature" enough to constitue "two or three" gathered in his name....while those who are considered vulnerable to "wavering" are (in disobediance to scrpture) effectively "forbidden to marry"...

The man who wilfully destroys families now opines that:

"Please do pray for the parties who are trying to develop better ways of communicating here. Hopefully the social pressures of having an audience will cause some relatives to work on improving their communication skills."



....but I understand why...I know the difficulties David is going through and that lie beyond this apparent blasphemous contradicition....We can't be too hard on the man, here guys....

In the greater interests of the Kingdom of Heaven, David just wants to project the authority, speak with the command, and garner the public respect that he constantly reads that the Apostle and the Prophets of the Bible enjoyed....in those dramatic passages one after another, that he earnestly attends to and passionately aspires to....that's all he wants.

But poor David....while as zealous as ever, he is being betrayed by something as simple as his failing eyesight here....and I know the very epsidode in scripture(Numbers 22:22-35) that is inadvertently causing him such unintentional grief... ..

Could someone on speaking terms with him, be so kind as to to discreetly point out to David that in his writings and the quality of the thought therein, he actually needs to be attempting to vicariously emulate the spiritual "presence" and communicate "authority" of Balaams' ASS... and NOT Balaams arse.....

I noticed that Dave played the flattery game on his forum and comparing competition with me and Malcolm when commenting on my opposition to Private Eyes, which is a great disarming tactic and designed to get people subtly seeking his approval even while they criticise him. Like Dave throwing in compliments on his children's achievements and on their refusal to be drawn into public criticism's against him, after he has slandered us all.

The criticism that I had said it was OK for Private Eyes to pass on information privately could be compared with Dave's own practise of contacting people privately and enlisting their support against those opposing him on the forum, or the many in house discussions against us all, or the private leader's meetings where the personal foibles of his acolytes are discussed in detail. While it is good to claim the higher moral ground when opposing Dave, he needs to recognise his hypocrisy in calling foul against so many issues where he makes no efforts to apply the same standards to himself. The rant against Kate, claiming people have stopped listening to her after she asked Dave to observe the same standard he imposes on others in blocking outside comments on the Dysfunctional Families thread, is another example of his hypocritical spite.

Hoping flattery will get [b:0706dd0278]me [/b:0706dd0278]everywhere. Another, very good post Apostate.

I’d like to think you’re not opposed to me rather that you have simply disagreed or taken issue with some of the things I have done. Which is fair enough and I will certainly take your comments onboard,

Whilst I agree with Apostates comments regarding Dave’s flattery tactics, I think it is guilt, fear and intimidation where Dave really excels.

He has reason to believe that he unmasked the majority of his vocal critics. If anyone posts on either his site or the Rick Ross site, he effectively knows or at least thinks he knows who they are. Even when he is so obviously wrong. His attacks on those he names still have the effect of putting other people off from commenting. Less they endure the same treatment.

In regards to ex members, he will question whether they are still Christians, whether they are still forsaking all, whether they are now employed. Knowing full well, that some will allow themselves to be judged, by the same standards, as when they were a member. Toss in the leadership issue, past power struggles, accusations of bitterness, as opposed to genuine concerns, the alleged tit for tat i.e. if you tell on me, I’ll tell on you and it’s easy to see. Dave still wants to be in control those whose have left and be in control of what information comes out.

The question for everyone involved is, whether we/they will continue to let him.

and in the interst of dispelling a few myths about myself:

1: I was in The Army, went through Basic Combat Training at Ft. Benning GA, Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio TX, and was assigned to my permanent duty station as part of the 3rd Infantry Division, 2nd Brigade, 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery.

[www.stewart.army.mil]

My MOS (Military Occupational Specialization) was 91W Health Care Specialist. In civilian talk, I was a medic.

I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom phase 3 and was stationed in Iraq at a place called FOB Loyalty, which was neat the Green Zone, in Baghdad. I ascended to the rank of E4 and was Honorably Discharged from The Army on the day before Thanksgiving in 2005 according to Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13 (look it up) after (I believe, but would have to look it up to be sure) 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days. I mainly worked in the Battalion Aid Station on wounded Iraqis.

2. Untrue about being paid "under the table" for the restaurant. True about the Mexicans not liking me. Also true about a falling out with the boss.

3. Also, untrue about the govt paying my expenses or some such.

I have been taking Prozac for over three years, have been diagnosed with OCD, get very despondent sometimes, see a therapist, and am very active in my (middle-of-the-road Episcopal) church. I am not a crazed Rambo maniac like DM paints me out to be. Sheez...

Zeusor, I glad you chose to clarify those matters. I was intending to ask you, whether I could post that you were a Medic.

Actually, I think you got off quite litely being described as a Marine or Commando. It's a wonder he didn't call you a sniper.

So the real issue is:

If he lying to his members about this issue. Just how many other lies is he telling them, in his efforts to mitigate the fallout from critics?

Quote
private eyes
Hoping flattery will get [b:c84705d4dd]me [/b:c84705d4dd]everywhere. Another, very good post Apostate.

I’d like to think you’re not opposed to me rather that you have simply disagreed or taken issue with some of the things I have done. Which is fair enough and I will certainly take your comments onboard,

Whilst I agree with Apostates comments regarding Dave’s flattery tactics, I think it is guilt, fear and intimidation where Dave really excels.

He has reason to believe that he unmasked the majority of his vocal critics. If anyone posts on either his site or the Rick Ross site, he effectively knows or at least thinks he knows who they are. Even when he is so obviously wrong. His attacks on those he names still have the effect of putting other people off from commenting. Less they endure the same treatment.

In regards to ex members, he will question whether they are still Christians, whether they are still forsaking all, whether they are now employed. Knowing full well, that some will allow themselves to be judged, by the same standards, as when they were a member. Toss in the leadership issue, past power struggles, accusations of bitterness, as opposed to genuine concerns, the alleged tit for tat i.e. if you tell on me, I’ll tell on you and it’s easy to see. Dave still wants to be in control those whose have left and be in control of what information comes out.

The question for everyone involved is, whether we/they will continue to let him.

Hello Private eyes. You are correct that I am not opposed to you, but rather chose to express a disagreement with something you had done. It is good to know that we can disagree and still remain cordial in our relations, something that can NOT happen within the JC's.

I would agree with you that Dave does excel in manufacturing, guilt, intimidation, and fear in his followers. He does so by entwining himself around their ideals. It is predominantly the young and niave that he hoodwinks in such a way. In the end they become convinced that to challenge him is to challenge God himself, and no wonder as he claims to be God's man of the hour without whom all would be lost.

It is understandable that some ex JC's take their own time before they can fully untwine Dave from their own "pre-him" ideals, thereby freeing themselves from guilt because they use the "my" word when speaking of something they wear, use, or own. It took me a number of years before I could say "my car", "my shoes", "my undies", without guilt, because to do so was to be disobedient to some JC world view of the early church where they supposedly owned nothing privately. Funny how the apostles used to wander from privately owned house to privately owned house though. :roll:

I know some ex members who, even after years of being outside the JC's, still felt condemned for wanting curtains to hang on curtain rails to afford them some privacy. They had been using bed sheets because that was in keeping with some JC contrived concept of "poor in spirit". These people have moved past that now, but it was a challenge for them. Now they have developed a faith that allows them to live free of guilt.

I feel as an ex member the most powerful way I can expose Dave is by being open about the impact some of his teachings had on me, and how long it took before I could even accept a wage for work that I do. I can tell you it was "years", and that was with me confronting head on all their deceptive teachings in my thought patterns. Today, I look at some of the ways I used to think within the JC's and I am amazed at where my head got to. It was all because I was convinced that God expected me to live like that, and when you are surrounded by 20 something people who think the same way with a leader who keeps hammering the point home on top of the isolating that they do it is easy to see how it can happen.

Some excerpts from an article Dave recently wrote about the Quakers, and this is after they specifically asked him not to. Keep it up Dave. A fine example of how to win friends and influence people. :lol:

All sourced from: [cust.idl.net.au] (accessed 23.09.07)

Quote

Our faith in the teachings of Jesus, and our attempts to obey the
teachings of Jesus are, in themselves, virtually grounds for
condemning us as teaching "salvation by works"; and that is the most
commonly expressed reason for rejecting us. Of course it helps if
they can pretend that we are a sex cult, or that members are being
physically and/or psychologically abused, and so they invariably try
to imply this, although they are always at a bit of a loss with
regard to evidence.

Faith in the teachings of Jesus?? I guess if he thinks whipping people, justifying shooting them when the right circumstances roll around, or that "he who has two should give to he who has none" refers to body parts then he would be right. But seeing that these things are not in the teachings of Jesus then I can understand Quaker complaints.

No evidence of abuse?? I am sure there are people on this thread that would differ with this opinion.

Quote

The fact that our spiritual journey has led us to be pacifists, to teach a kind of universalism based on people walking in all the light they have, and to regard sincerity/integrity and love as the two most important Christian virtues, has put us very strongly into the Quaker camp.

This one is so laughable, I had to post this previous one :lol:

[i:571c56aa43]Pain seems to be the most humane and speedy form of human punishment. We could whip them strongly, without doing any damage to their teeth, brain, or spine. And it would all be over in just a few minutes
[/i:571c56aa43]
SOURCE: [cust.idl.net.au] (accessed 29 Dec. 2006)

Quote

Now, all of that seems to have changed, largely as a result of
a serious campaign by certain non-Quakers to cause division, but, as
is becoming more and more evident, because of serious reservations
that some often weighty Friends have had about us almost since Cherry
and I first joined the Society of Friends eight years ago.

Of course it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they have seen straight his claims of pacifism. Na... that wouldn't be it :wink:

Quote

Cherry recently shared with me that she sees our continued attendance like the sit-ins that used to take place in buses and in lunch
counters in the Southern States of the U.S. during the 1960s. They
were confrontational, and they tended to aggravate the problems that
existed between Whites and African-Americans. But they achieved
results, and thus are considered, with hindsight, to have been a
significant step forward in terms of moral development in those states. It seems that what we are doing may be in line with those demonstrations

:lol: :roll: Comparing the Quakers disagreeing with them with the US civil rights movement is a bit delusional. Remember we are talking about the actions of the JC's in whipping people, Dave claiming to be a leader in some Christian army, and promoting organ harvesting by use of biblical mandates.

Quote

Some people have argued that there is no provision in modern
(Australian) Quaker process for kicking someone out of the
organisation on the basis of their beliefs, and others have said
that, even if there is, the official Quaker stance (and I think this
includes all branches of Quakerism over its entire 350 year history)
would never be to block someone from continuing to attend meetings.
If this is the case, and if we do not leave willingly, then either
Friends are going to have to circumvent past tradition in one way or
another, or learn to co-exist with ourselves.

Here is an example of Dave being unreasonable in refusing to leave when told he is unwelcome. He would like to upset the Quakers so much that they call the police or something, and then he can trot off home satisfied in the belief that they are not following Jesus. Of course Dave would never do such things to remove people from his midst, or ever take any legal action to get what he wants. What a bully. He tells them that they are either going to have do something to kick him out or learn to live with him and his erroneous teachings. Somehow I cannot see Dave allowing someone to say such a thing to him.

Quote

But hopefully if we do not give in, it will eventually need to be dealt with officially, and when that happens, Friends will be given the opportunity to move forward in keeping with the great ideals of quakerism. It could actually be an historic moment for Australian Quakerism.

"[b:571c56aa43]historic[/b:571c56aa43] moment for Australian Quakerism" :roll: Sheesh!!

Give us a break. If someone disgarees with Dave it is comparable to the US civil rights movement and as such is a historic moment in Australia. I think that if the Quakers were to read Dave's article they would be further convinced of how delusional the man becomes when anyone disagrees with him.

He tries to convince all his followers that they are somehow part of historic changes on the world stage. Concerning stuff.

Concerning indeed, Apostate. Definitely a "high-risk" group.

Once again I want to reiterate the fact that I mean neither DM, any individual Jesus Christians, nor anybody else for that matter any harm, physical or otherwise, nor do I wish anyone any misfortune.

But also, I believe that DM and his organization have to be stopped by whatever legal, moral, and non-destructive means necessary, and I am personally committed to that cause.

It chills me to the bone to think of how he is using those kids as human shields, props in his fantasy world.

No hard feelings I hope, Apostate?