Nick: so now you are sharing the details of the IP addresses from which your participants are posting, with your other forum members, as well?

I thought that your forum promoted respecting the privacy of those registered there?

Nick has provided an explanation. I've accepted his explanation but to be honest I didn't have much choice not to, as the damage had already been done. It's bad forum etiquette as far as i'm concerned. There is usually a strict privacy policy on any given forum. I expected higher standards on the xjcs forum considering incidents of the past. Little Thorn's attack on the innocent music teacher being a prime example as to why we must all protect our private information. I have never asked for the private information of anyone either over there or over here. I have no interest in knowing anyone's private details and i'd like to be treated the same.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 11:22PM by Apollo.

I noticed new terminology in use by the JC's posting on the xJC site. Previously they have talked about outreach 'teams,' 'ministry' and 'witnessing'--now they use the term 'cell' which is usually used to describe the small groups that make up subversive underground organisations.
Is this, as I think, a new usage or has this terminology been in use before to anyone's knowledge?

I'm curious as to whether this change, if indeed it is a recent change, signals an intention to be undercover missionaries in future.
Being a cynic, I would put this down to a yarn that Davejc has spun them to explain the new set-up and let them down gently while he looks for new young flesh and kidneys elsewhere.

Why would christian missionaries need to organise themselves in the manner of a subversive underground organisation, they are hardly in danger of religious persecution in what must be christian majority countries?

Susan, for the record: I have written nothing of your child, nor about you nor about anything having to do with you nor anything at all about you on this or any other forum. I do not write about you nor anything having to do with you on this nor any other forums at all. I am not trying to bother you or your child. If things are popping up elsewhere, they must be from someone working to discredit me, and are not from me at all. Investigate these things if you wish; my innocence will be proven. I am not trying to bother you, much less communicate with you at all. Please leave me alone, Susan. Shoot, you have my phone number, give me a call and let's talk about it. I really do not know what you are talking about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 02:11AM by zeuszor.

Blackhat:

Your post quoting McKay doesn't demonstrate much, other than his attempt to spin anything and everything.

Again, when supposed former members (e.g. Joe Johnson) surface through independent communication and visit with their families, this will actually demonstrate something.

McKay's rhetoric means nothing.

- Moderator


I must agree with the Moderator that not a word that comes out of McKay, has the slightest credibility to it....although I would also like to thank Blackhat for going to the trouble of passing on this latest "tidbit", as what McKay lies about, inadvertently "tells" a story, (we simply have to be adult enougth to be able to read "through" the lines...)

Along this vein, I thought this a very interesting observation from Sisi,

Trust me, Apollo, Sue told me as soon as Dave got snippy with me, that I could simply ignore him, she implied that is how he was dealt with and she assured me I would have little to do with him at all when I visited her team. I did communicate with a few of the jc forum members in emails and they took the same attitude when Dave went off on tangents but they could say little on the forum...I remember Eliays trying to offer some support only to have Dave twist that. You could tell people were circumventing Dave, dismissive of his petty bellyaching and Sue and others implied to just "go along to get along" and basically not waste time his minutia as it was meaningless and just his style with everyone-it was not personal. Now that she took her family and left, it's easy to see she had likely had enough of him at that point but being it would be difficult to ever say so and not then become immediate enemy backsliders and out of the spirit and all....she and her family have taken the velvet divorce" route and still seemed to make the odd post to keep things "chill with the old bill". [jcs.xjcs.org]

Hmmm.....

After the split in 1996, Kevin, Apostate and the others involved "ran the show" for another 16 months or so on their own, didn't they(?)....that's the sort of timeframe I'd expect for the current "arrangements" that McKay is trying to explain away as part of his "grand plan"...(more "Grand SHAM" I'd suspect)...that after that sort of time frame, we would begin to see the REAL evidence of recovery that Moderator refers to (independent communication with family and friends, and the freedom to visit the same as individuals, even where they are clearly "antagonisitc" to McKay)....

Hence I would like to ask Stoic and the Moderator, if in their experience, they have ever seen any "covertly persusasive groups" ever turn for the "good", once they have rid themsleves of their erstwhile leaders....or do they all just eventually "collapse" after failing to reinvent themselves sufficiently.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 11:10AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

I have no first hand knowledge of the Jesus Christians so base my understanding on how groups in general, not specifically this group, operate.
I see Davejc as being the absolute definer of this group, notwithstanding the fact that his members advise ignoring some of his rantings. When push comes to shove they obey his wishes and directives, however much they might privately think him a bit of an old windbag. They put his 'teachings' above their own assessment of the situation and as long as he is in the picture he has control of them. The persuasion is covert after all, not overt.
The control is maintained in other ways than through the content of what he actually says.

I think it possible that over time, away from Davejc and with some intelligent direction the group can morph into something less destructive that works for the people involved and not for Davejc--- but I think it unlikely in this case.

The group is too small and insular, there are not enough diverse views to enable this group to sift through sufficient options to reinvent itself successfully and they have all been heavily indoctrinated in Davejc's view of the world.
That's a lot to overcome--they have a much better chance as individuals to overcome that.

The group dynamic that they know is one that centres around one controller and dictator and if importance is placed on keeping the group together over the welfare of the individuals (as Davejc has always demonstrated) a replacement 'Davejc' figure will emerge to take control and continue the dynamic.

There have been one or two groups that have ejected the controlling lead figure and successfully changed the dynamic but these were much larger groups and had some external help to make the necessary changes--ie got in some professionals to advise on reinventing the group structure.

More than that though is to consider whether this group needs to continue--the individuals could each, should they wish, find a more benign christian group that would minister to their religious needs--there are enough diverse organisations that would fit the bill if they were to look as individuals.
What they won't find is the intensity of emotion that exists in the JC's--all that 'us against the world', persecution fantasy that Davejc fosters, controls and uses incessantly. The group addiction to that level of emotional intensity is the real stumbling block to any change, IMO.

At the moment the group is their whole world. When they, as individuals, start looking beyond the group to satisfy their various needs then the group will begin to naturally change and probably disintegrate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 05:12PM by Stoic.

Quote
rrmoderator
Again, when supposed former members (e.g. Joe Johnson) surface through independent communication and visit with their families, this will actually demonstrate something.

McKay's rhetoric means nothing.

I agree, that is what I would consider solid evidence.

I feel almost certain that the ''disbanding'' was an attempt to get his critics off his case.

I believe McKay is still in regular contact with his victims followers.

I remember checking the user facility on the JCs forum to find out when each member had last logged on. It confirmed several of his victims/followers had logged onto the JCs forum after the announcement of the ''disbanding''. Not one of those members who logged on had made a post which would suggest they were in communication behind the scenes. When McKay realised I had done my investigating he quickly removed that search facility.

The fact none of his victims/followers have posted on the forum for a couple of months leaves me feeling suspicious. If there was some kind of disagreement and the cult did ''disband'' I do not believe every single one of them would completely turn their back on him. You would think that at least one or two would pop onto the forum to offer some kind of support. It leads me to believe that they are under strict orders to refrain from posting. This is all part of McKay's ''grand plan''.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 08:32PM by Apollo.

Malcolm Wesley WREST:

Some groups do change after the leader dies.

For example, after the deaths of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young the Mormon Church devolved power and ceased to be a single personality-driven organization it once was under their leadership. Today Mormons have a church government and the organization has softened its positions in a number of areas to move more mainstream. I expect that process will continue.

After the death of Ellen White The Seventh Day Adventist Church continued to evolve and change. Today many Christians see it as simply another Protestant denomination, though different in some ways, is not destructive or personality-driven as it once was under White and before her under Miller.

Jehovah's Witnesses devolved power from one man rule to a governing body, but still retains much of its destructive nature in my opinion.

Scientology, after the death of L. Ron Hubbard, moved from on man ruling over the organization to another man ruling over it. Nothing much seems to have changed in this respect and the stories of abuse continue.

After the death of "Moses" David Berg his widow took over the so-called "Children of God." The group has never really repudiated Berg and denounced his teachings as false. In my opinion it has changed names, but remains essentially the same and can be seen as a "destructive cult."

In my opinion ISKCON is a similar case, the group has made some changes since the death of its founder and deaths of other key leaders, but can still be seen as an essentially authoritarian destructive "cult."

Most cults disappear or gradually disintegrate after the leader dies. Especially a small group without meaningful accumulated assets like the JCs.

In my experience, if a group has accumulated substantial assets and developed a meaningful cash flow, someone will come forward to take over.

Otherwise cult groups typically will dissipate.

McKay is alive and the group appears to be active and still under his influence and/or control.

I just simply want to state that someone associated with the XJCs has been making a range of accusations against me, and I just wanted to let people know for the record that NONE of her accusations are true. Zero percent.

Some of the readers of the various forums may believe some of her nonsense, as they often want to believe the worst about me.

It seems that at the moment, she is not planning on going away, now that she has a regular audience for her drama-queen posturings and is at the center of attention, right where she likes to be.

She keeps making all of these accusations about me, yet provides no evidence nor even any examples.

She offers nothing at all of substance and basically just keeps chanting, "Brian's a bad person! Brian's a bad person! Brian's a bad person!"

I know that I am taking a chance on further inflaming her by making this post, but thought that to do so would be for the best.

She is so similar to Kirstie in the way she is always chopping and changing; she is very easily influenced and manipulated.

You're either a hero or a zero with her: she seems to do a lot of "splitting" and will variably describe me as her very dear friend or as a snake, depending on her mood and agenda.

Again: all of the accusations she is making about me over there are 100% untrue.

VE, why are you more obsessed with silencing me than doing something about DM the cult?

And why do you constantly attack me in a place where I cannot defend myself? I don't mention you, here or to anybody else.

I am not trying to bother you, Susan. Hell, I helped you at first, and you were grateful, until Glen turned you on me.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 10:52PM by zeuszor.

zeuszor:

This is really not on topic.

People like that are best ignored.