Whoops....sorry I neglected to post my "positive comments" about Christine....pardon me for the oversight...(another late night session here!) I of course am looking forward to reading your posting on the JesusChristian website, Egypt-Eira, where you ask David for his "positive comments" about the critics that he no doubt "loves" with the the love of Christ!

Christine I found her to be very principled and conscientious. She had a cheerful outlook that greatly contributed to the atmosphere of those who enjoyed her company. Always diligent in whatever she applied herself to. Very warm and vivacious.

...again let me say that there are pages of "positive comments" that I could make Egypt-Eira about many of the "individuals" in the JesusChristians. (Do you want more?) I am a little out of date, although I'm often surprised when I see or read the personal thoughts of people I knew, to note how little they have changed.

The group itself, with Boyd and Sheri in charge (not necessarily something that they might now be inclined to do), could possibly once again be managed into something "Christian"......it's only based on its current performance that I'd currently rather see it disband altogether.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2008 12:51AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

The people themselves in the community all come accross lovely and from my experiences most of them were.

Sue. What a lovely woman, a passion for doing what she believes to be right with God. A love like no other for getting the message out. If given the chance she is a very good mother, when not clouded by Roland. If she were not stuck in the cult she would be one of my best friends. I love her dearly and always will.

Roland. Amazing at 'litnessing' gets the out books out and brings in lots of money. Oddly funny! Hilarius actaully!

Danny. Not fair to comment on a child, but what a great kid, will one day be a great man!

Alf. Kind hearted, loving and very hard working. Incerdibly hansome.

Joe. Did not get to know him very well but from what i could tell really wants to be a great follower. (not sure if its God though, could be Dave)

Bob. Great bloke, liked him a lot. Amazing artist both musically and drawing. Very kind heart and gives great hugs!

Reinhard. Very quiet, but nice bloke. Very very funny!

Paul. Top bloke, cant fault him at all. Genuine and loving.

Ulrike. Amazing woman who really loves God and wants to follow him. Slightly misguided and needs love. Thankfully her husband (Paul) gives her alot of encouragement and love.

Martin. Like him a lot.


Those are the people i met, i did speak to others on email and messenger, but i wont comment on them as not met them in person.

Love Kirstie

FOR MALCOLM APOSTATE AND BARBIEDOLL

Thanks guys for the postings ... but I feel I must say something ... its very hard since Im only reading texts, but sometimes I feel I have touched a nerve (Malcom .. your last posts seemed emotional). Thats fine ... but I really dont wish to distress anyone ...

Obviously peoples feelings here are very strong, and I do realise that I am unexperienced as regards the JCS. My posts simply express my first expressions and feelings ... I seek not to agitate painful memories for anyone.

I can also understand your concern for me ... and you are all free to read my progress within the JCS forum. I have posted a few times already under the name Egypt-Eire (My name is Samuel)

It was nice to read all those positive comments .. rather like a ray of light had been cast upon this thread!

One thing, Malcolm, I looked through the visual archiv and noticed that you took part in that large walk without funding and provisions ... my initial thoughts were that you must have had an amazing experience ... I was rather inspired actually.

This really is like a little community here ... startin to get a hint of everyones personalities ..

God is Love, EE (samuel)

FOR MALCOLM

Oh forgot to mention that the comment I made about the quote saying Daves wife 'Going to hell', ... i wasnt aware it was from you personally. It just stood out as a good general indication of the whole feeling of this thread .. ie very negative and emotional. It was in no way meant to single you out or judge your motives for saying it ...

Egypt:

Now that the members of the board have shared some positive memories regarding the McKay group, it's your turn.

What have you experienced that is negative regarding Dave McKay?

What has he done that you are aware of that was or is wrong?

What did Dave McKay do on the JK Show that you thought was wrong?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2008 03:48AM by rrmoderator.

xxxNow that the members of the board have shared some positive memories regarding the McKay
xxxgroup, it's your turn.

Bit nervous now its been turned round to me ... (Im a person who tends to focus upon the positive!!)

xxxWhat have you experienced that is negative regarding Dave McKay?

Ive certainly had a lot of trouble getting registered on the JCs website ... took about 4 days or so. It was very frustrating with so much to say, and having to wait it out .. but im finally registered now and posting on both your site and JCS so thats fine now. As regards Dave personally, Ive only received some nice, encouraging emails. Nothing negative to report of at present.

xxxWhat has he done that you are aware of that was or is wrong?

Well, he's ALLEDGEDLY done rather a lot of bad things according to everyone here ... and I did get the long lists of problems which I requested (He made a reply to each one on his forum by the way) ... but as for my involvement, I have yet to investigate ... just gettin started really ...

xxxWhat did Dave McKay do on the JK Show that you thought was wrong?

He did seem tense and frustrated at times at the host ... (although my friend Cathy says that JKyle often makes his guests feel that way.) Its so difficult to criticise someone I dont know, and infact not at all fair of me to do so ... it was just our gut feeling here that this was a man much misunderstood and not a little persecuted. I can understand how others might interpret his display of emotion as uncouth, still I feel that he was just responding to a very tense situation, and his humiliation by Kyle infront of his wife of so many years.

Today feels rather refreshing here, like deeper feelings are being aired. I am becoming involved in a small way and hope I can continue to 'probe for Truth'.

Good post RRMODERATOR ... challenging but good

Thanks, EE (Samuel)

Quote
Egypt-Eira
FOR MALCOLM APOSTATE AND BARBIEDOLL

Thanks guys for the postings ... but I feel I must say something ... its very hard since Im only reading texts, but sometimes I feel I have touched a nerve (Malcom .. your last posts seemed emotional). Thats fine ... but I really dont wish to distress anyone ...

Obviously peoples feelings here are very strong, and I do realise that I am unexperienced as regards the JCS. My posts simply express my first expressions and feelings ... I seek not to agitate painful memories for anyone.

I can also understand your concern for me ... and you are all free to read my progress within the JCS forum. I have posted a few times already under the name Egypt-Eire (My name is Samuel)

It was nice to read all those positive comments .. rather like a ray of light had been cast upon this thread!

One thing, Malcolm, I looked through the visual archiv and noticed that you took part in that large walk without funding and provisions ... my initial thoughts were that you must have had an amazing experience ... I was rather inspired actually.

This really is like a little community here ... startin to get a hint of everyones personalities ..

God is Love, EE (samuel)

As I said originally EE join the JC's, forsake all, quit your job, and dive in. To me it seems to be the best way for you to learn, as listening to the experiences of ex members is all too negative for you.

I am one who is "marked for division" by Dave and am not allowed to post on his forum because he considers me "divisive". So listen to me, I am telling you to UNITE with them so completely that you leave all behind you.

I also realise that Dave has responded on his forum, and I responded on a forum he is allowed to post on (which he knows of but to this point refuses to come to)

Here is my response to his denial.

BEGIN COPY...............................................................................................................

It also helps to point out that Craig is not only an atheist now, but he also believes that Jesus Christ was a sham and an enemy of humanity.

Dave you are getting mellower with age. Previously the comparison was with the devil :twisted:

Nevertheless, because Craig has recently posted another list of gripes on the Rick Ross forum (and because he has been banned from posting here) we will do him the courtesy of posting his list here. Please note that almost every sentence that Craig ever posts over there (and one of the reasons why he was banned over here) contains a deliberate distortion of the truth. You will see many instances of that in the list below, which was addressed to an enquirer from Ireland:

Quote:
I will offer up some eye witness accounts and personal experience for you of life in the JC cult that, as a family man, you would do well to seriously consider.

1. The JC's, Dave in particular, will inject himself into how your small family operates. You will find yourself having to give an account for many decisions you make as a parent, i.e. to give coca cola or not, how many tracts the child is expected to deliver, if the child sleeps with other adults in a separate room as a member in their own right, how many smacks you can administer, how open you are to another adult locking your child in a room without your permission.

Whenever individuals (and especially families) choose to live in a community (of any sort) there will be inconveniences. The problem here, however, is that Craig regularly insists that "the JCs, and Dave in particular" are imposing something on someone who is NOT a JC. As a community, we often have to make decisions that we each agree on; but we do it as democratically as any group I have ever heard of. Let's start with Coca Cola. I think he is talking about an incident that happened some twelve years ago in India, where we would have an ice cream and soft drink treat at least once a week. One parent insisted that his kids should have as much ice cream and coke as the rest of the community, whereas it was also argued that these same (very young) children did not eat adult-sized portions of meat, vegetables, etc. and so it made sense to give them smaller portions. He ended up leaving the community over it.

Discipline within a community is another matter for discussion. As far as possible, we work around the wishes of the natural parents. Christine once sent a child (aged about three) to his room for being naughty (which Craig describes as "locking" him in without his parents' permission. It was not a problem at the time, but he has brought this up now. There was no official complaint about that being used as a form of punishment. But parents ARE expected to be responsible for the behaviour of their children, and if that is a problem, then maybe this is not the place for you. However, members of the community (several of whom are parents themselves) use overall common sense with regard to discipline. In one case, for example, a single mother who was paranoid of men and who seemed to be wrapping her 8 or 9 year old in cotton wool, was challenged by the single men about letting him share a room with them in preference to sleeping in her bed with her, so that he could get some male influence in his life.

Thanks for providing evidence as to the validity of my claim that you
1. forbade a parent from giving his children what HE wanted
2. that you challenged the mother of a young boy because she was nervous about a push to have him sleep in a room with strange men to get more "male influence", charging her of wrapping him in cotton wool to not do as your followers demanded.
3. that parental discipline of a child is a matter for the community to discuss which resulted in a conclusion that the parent was expected to abide by.



Quote:
2. I have personally witnessed Dave disconnecting the battery on the wheel chair of a child suffering severe terminal multiple sclerosis, much to the horror of his mother who left the group immediately after this occurred. Dave's reasoning at the time was that the child was trying to get away from him. Since then he has justified it by saying the child was trying to use the wheel chair as a "weapon"


I'm somewhat at a loss on this one, because I can only vaguely remember it. In fact, at first I thought that it was something that had happened while I was away at another base. The problem here is that Craig goes into emotional detail about the disease that the boy had, like if he had elephantitis, was blind, and/or had the world's worst case of halitosis, that would have made what I did any more or less right/wrong. The point was that the boy was very badly behaved, using the wheelchair as a weapon. I don't even remember disconnecting the battery myself, but I do vaguely remember saying that this SHOULD be considered as an option if he misbehaved.

Good to see you are now acknowledging you were not at another base when this occurred. That is a shift as previously you fought tooth and nail to say you were not there.
No, the problem is not that I go into detail about the disease the boy suffered, the problem was in your action of disconnecting his battery.

Quote:
3. There is a mandatory separation required between married couples for 3 months each year. Dave does this because he is threatened by the unity a good marriage has and the power that unity represents.

There is NO mandatory separation required between married couples for three months each year. Craig was in the community for several years, and he claims his authority on that basis. Perhaps he can tell us how he spent his three months of separation each year while he was in the community. (There is a grain of truth in what he said, but I'll cover that separately; I want to emphasise Craig's dishonesty first.)

I agree, there IS a grain of truth in what I said and it is that there is a mandatory separation required between married couples for 3 months each year. Dave does this because he is threatened by the unity a good marriage has and the power that unity represents.

Quote:
4. You will be taught that donating a kidney is a biblical requirement and that John the Baptists "He who has two, should give to he who has none" admonition refers to body parts.

You will NOT be taught that donating a kidney is a biblical requirement. Once again, ask Craig for some personal experience of this, since he claims that his membership in the JCs is what qualifies him for making such absurd statements.

Let me quote your "absurd statements" Dave:

This is in response to media coverage (mostly in the U.K.) with regard to the decision by a number of members of our community to donate kidneys to strangers, as an expression of our Christian faith.

The Apostle Paul, when writing to the Romans, urged them to present their bodies as "living sacrifices", which he added was nothing more than their "reasonable service" to God and others.

John the Baptist, when speaking to the crowds who came to him to be baptised, urged them to give proof of their repentance, and he suggested that one proof would be for those who had two to give to those who had none.

Jesus commanded his followers to take up their cross and follow his example of sacrificial love.

In the light of these instructions, we feel that it is only reasonable that we do what we can to save or dramatically improve the quality of another person's life, by giving one of the two kidneys that we now have to someone else.
source: [cust.idl.net.au]


Quote:
5. Dave Mckay instructed his group on how to defraud welfare, i.e. fill in claims for unemployment benefits while falsely claiming to be sincerely looking for employment in order to get the money.

I did NOT instruct the group on how to defraud welfare. If I had, I'm sure Craig would be the first person to report me to the authorities. I did have a meeting with the Commonwealth head of the Department of Social Services, who flew in a private yet to visit our community, and he was impressed with the free work that our community was doing at the time, and said that, in his opinion, members of the community were entitled to received unemployment benefits while doing volunteer work.

"I did not have sex with that woman" boldy said Clinton when asked about his affair with Monica, and yet he did. You say you didn't instruct the group, and yet you DID.

Quote:
6. David McKay, has forbidden his wife from seeing her own children and grandchildren, of whom all bar one have been systematically ejected from his group. Prior to the ejection he did everything he could to try and break up their marriages.

I have NOT forbidden Cherry from seeing her children and grandchildren. We have received a letter from one son telling us never to contact him again. Our oldest daughter has moved and not given us her new address. Ask Craig how many of the three children who are alienated from us called Cherry and wished her a happy mother's Day this year. Two of our children were kicked out of the group hours after an unsuccessful attempt by them to kick me out. (The rules of our community are such that I CAN be kicked out, and I have been on two occasions, and was only allowed back when I apologised for my behaviour.)

And why pray tell did that son say he wanted no contact from you? Wasn't it because you were threatening him and his reputation if certain postings continued on the RR forum. (don't worry, the questions are rhetorical, as I know the answer)

And are you talking about the time they challenged you for kicking someone up the back side as you threw him out the door calling him an "Arsehole".

Quote:
7. Life in Dave's community is so dominated by his narcissistic opinion that you will find yourself being challenged by which end you squeeze a toothpaste tube, how many squares of toilet paper you use, whether you doing daily runs or not, how many tracts you distribute, and what donations you receive for them.

I'm not sure what a "narcissistic opinion" is, but we did have a meeting at one time with regard to the huge amounts of toilet paper that we were going through, and discovered that some members would spin off dozens of squares of toilet paper at a time and wad it up into a ball. The group (not Dave) discussed what they thought was a reasonable amount of toilet paper to use per wipe. (I think we arrived at five squares, although nothing was ever done to enforce it, and I think I probably average about six squares myself.) The point of the exercise was to get people thinking about waste, something that seems to bother Craig (Apostate).

Also, this is not "Dave's community." People at RR have talked about what life in the JCs will be like after I'm dead and gone. If they would shut up about it being my community, we might find out now, since almost all decisions are made autonomously now!

Daily runs, numbers of tracts/books distributed each day, and donations received are all matters dealt with by the various autonomous teams, although there is presently a little "competition" to win a trip to Kenya if people get a certain number of books out.


Thank you for providing more evidence of your group pedantic nature and that you do indeed have meetings to discuss how squares of toilet paper a person is allowed to use. Do you scrunch of fold? Which way is more Christian?

I still remember your drawing a pyramid hierarchical structure with you at the top Dave, and the your articles where you are claiming to be the "captain". Your claims say differently. Your behavior says differently

Quote:
8. Dave cannot tolerate any sort of disagreement whatsoever. He cannot live with it, especially not from a follower. To him, the "mind of Christ" means everybody has to think like and agree with him. Express a disagreement with him and watch and see what happens. This is partially the reason behind my comments that you join his group. I am so convinced that you will see these things for yourself, because of your questioning nature, that I am confident you will in time see through him.

This one is so totally false from start to finish that it is not worth responding to. Perhaps Craig would like to tell us about what a poor mixed-up mess my oldest son, Kevin, was after thirty years in the group, since the group generally tended to do whatever Kevin decided, because it is hard to think of anything I ever suggested that Kevin did not object to (often for hours). After Craig and Kevin failed in their coup attempt, and were then kicked out themselves, one of the most refreshing thoughts expressed by all of the remaining members was what a relief it was not to have to listen to Kevin's constant complaints about everything we did. Most felt that he should have been kicked out years earlier, but it was only my belief that dissent is healthy that kept him in for so long.

One sign that child abuse is occurring in a house in how the parent speaks of that child publicly. Lets highlight how you publicly speak of one of your children shall we "it is hard to think of anything I ever suggested that Kevin did not object to" "one of the most refreshing thoughts expressed by all of the remaining members was what a relief it was not to have to listen to Kevin's constant complaints about everything we did. Most felt that he should have been kicked out years earlier". Like I said you cannot tolerate disagreement.

Quote:
9. As you watched the JK show you would have seen survivors of Jones town expressing their concerns about the similarites between Jim Jones and David McKay regarding his approach, temperament, as well as also being unteachable.


Another one that is not worth responding to! Like a hand-picked jury who had actually gotten together prior to the show to be briefed on what they were supposed to say. Exactly WHAT similarities they saw in a few brief moments on the JK show still remains a mystery!

It seems the ones that you tell others are "not worth responding to" are the ones most significant. You expect people to believe that survivors of the Jim Jones massacre were "briefed on what they were supposed to say". I am sure they could speak for themselves.

You ask: "Exactly WHAT similarities they saw in a few brief moments on the JK show still remains a mystery!"

How is this one. Jim Jones was so totally paranoid that he attributed motivations and plans to people who clearly had no such plans, i.e. his attribution to the senator visiting him that he was going to turn others against him. His paranoia created the very thing he feared. The controlling nature of every aspect of a persons life, i.e. what they feed their own children, how many squares of toilet paper they use, which end they squeeze a tooth paste tube, etc.

Quote:
10. Divorcees are forbidden to get remarried, as this is adultery in the JC's. There is no second chance irregardless of whether the woman fled for her life to get away from a violent rapist husband.

Yep. The closest thing to the truth in the entire list. But we have offered re-married divorcees the freedom to join the community as long as they would acknowledge that they should NOT have remarried, according to our understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

You cannot say it is the truth. It is the "closest thing to the truth". You do not deny it; instead you go on to offer a morsel of "grace" you show to a remarried divorcee ... "as long as they would acknowledge that they should NOT have remarried". How exactly do they acknowledge that? Do you make them publicly confess how wrong they were to get married?

Quote:
11. He is not seeking acceptance with the larger society by entering the Quakers. he is infiltrating the group and using their respectability to cloak his own actions. How do I know this, because it is what we did often in his group. He views mainline churches and hypocritical pharisees, old bottles who reject his pure presentation of Jesus teachings.

Craig the mind reader! We often did WHAT? How often? Please give us some details here, Craig! We joined the Catholic Church many years ago, and did what we could to help them out. In fact, we helped ALL of the churches in Medowie with such things as scripture teaching at the local schools. There were no problems with our efforts to help them, but, as has happened with the Quakers (after TEN YEARS of irreproachable behaviour on our part) is that some people got scared that something MIGHT happen. End of story.

Dave, the king of spin. The Quakers gave you the boot because they disagreed with your violent stand in whipping people after it became obvious that your were calling yourself a Quaker while practicing such things.

Quote:
12. He has a panel of judges within the JC's that judge the "sins" of those within the group.

Wow! Tell us about this one, Craig. Who is on the panel? What a whopper!

I am sure that was you I saw on Fox TV

Quote:
13. He has publicly whipped a volunteer in Kenya for theft, contrary to biblical direction and the laws of that country.

No, I have NOT publicly whipped a volunteer in Kenya. Just more lies. (Once again, there is some truth here, but Craig destroys his credibility before he begins, because he can never seem to resist embellishing the truth.

Hmm, you did not save that man from the mob in Kenya and yet you are happy to claim some credit as a result of your teachings, and yet you refuse to take credit for one of your followers listening to your justification to whip a "sinner" by actually doing so. Why is that?

You can't have it both ways Dave.

END COPY.............................................................................................................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2008 05:59AM by apostate.

Egypt:

Very telling response.

Basically your response indicates that you have seen nothing wrong with Dave McKay.

Very much like McKay's followers responding to the same questions previously on this thread.

Look back on the thread and you will see the same pattern of responses.

Apparently the viewing audience of the JK Show would sharply disagree with your assessment of McKay on the program. And it's hard to believe we actually watched the same program.

The general consensus seemed to be that McKay was an angry man, given to temper tantrums, manipulative, dominating and at times was caught lying.

"Allegedly"?

Again the same type of response received from McKay followers.

You say that you actually "investigate"?

That doesn't seem like the right word to describe the process you are currently engaged in.

It appears that McKay essentially tells you what you want and it makes you feel good.

You don't really care about the pain he has caused others or his history of abuse and bad behavior.

Hopefully you won't drag your family under McKay's influence.

If you do that whatever happens to them will be something you will carry with you the rest of your life.

FOR RRMODERATOR

I have to say ... this last post seems very harsh.

xxxVery telling response. Basically your response indicates
xxx that you have seen nothing wrong with Dave McKay.
xxxVery much like McKay's followers responding to the same
xxxquestions previously on this thread.

I feel your projecting onto me that I am a 'follower' of dave McKay rather than an honest inquirer after Truth.

xxxApparently the viewing audience of the JK Show would sharply disagree
xxxwith your assessment of McKay on the program. And it's hard to believe
xxxwe actually watched the same program.

Well, as I have said before, all three of us who watched it thought it was very one sided ... stacked AGAINST Dave and his wife.

xxxThe general consensus seemed to be that McKay was an angry
xxxman, given to temper tantrums, manipulative, dominating and at
xxxtimes was caught lying.

I dont actually know what the 'general consensus' was ... you would probably be in a better position to comment on that than me. I am just an individual viewer, as are my wife and friend.

xxxYou say that you actually "investigate"? That doesn't seem like the
xxxright word to describe the process you are currently engaged in.

I am undergoing a process of investigation ... infact those who become interested in Mormonism are called 'investigators' before they receive a priesthood of some sort. An investigator and a follower are 2 different things, a distinction I feel you should be clear about if moderating such a forum, with respect.

xxxIt appears that McKay essentially tells you what you want and
xxx it makes you feel good. You don't really care about the pain he has
xxxcaused others or his history of abuse and bad behavior.

How can you possibly know if I care about those who have suffered? This must probably be a case of projection on your part once again. I cannot but help feel that you harbour some personal feelings of ill will towards Dave McKay, rather than taking on a slightly more impartial/professional role. Orperhaps thsi is projection on my part :-)

xxxHopefully you won't drag your family under McKay's influence.
xxxIf you do that whatever happens to them will be something you
xxx will carry with you the rest of your life.

A sombre warning indeed. I am a follower of Christ, and a child of God, and I Trust Him that he will guide me, and my family, in this world. Where he wills I will follow. (Note I have not stated WHERE ... that is His business, not mine .... and also not yours.)

God is Love, (please keep posts in a loving spirit)

Egypt (Samuel)

Egypt:

I have no personal interest in Dave McKay.

Dealing with cult groups is my work.

McKay represents a very small portion of my work as his group and influence is very limited.

Your posts go in circles and don't really contribute much to this message board.

And you don't appear to be seriously interested in the facts, or investigating much of anything, just getting personal attention from McKay or whomever.