Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: private eyes ()
Date: July 22, 2008 02:51PM

Zeuszor, Thank you for sharing those statistics.

I think one of the issues that needs to be considered when discussing cults is the difference betwen someone who choses to leave and someone who is pushed. The issue of family ties are also an important dynamic. Polygamist groups are an example.

I see you have raised the issue of the forums. It's only my opinion, (but I suspect it may be shared by a few) that all three sites now discussing the JC are in one way or another, off the rails.

The JCsxJCs site is set up as a free discussion betwen members and ex members, supporters and observers. Perhaps it operating as purely an
ex member, current member site may provide a point of difference? It's funny when the RR site is criticised, when basically the same group is on the ex JC site. I suspect that a lot of the group would also post on the JC site if it weren't for nasty impediments like being banned.

Ironically, you may be one of the few that are actually having on going dialogue with the JC.

For the record I enjoy some good private conversations with a few ex members and current and ex associates. I would encourage ex members to act independently and contribute as you feel best and help whomever you chose.

Xenophone has pointed out some perceived errors in a JC book. It would have been good for the JC to simply to acknowledge the concern and perhaps indicate, if a correction is warranted, that it could occur during a reprint. Instead we see the cut and paste at work, with every word analysed to the inth degree. Dave certainly teaches his students well.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: private eyes ()
Date: July 22, 2008 03:31PM

Talamasca, I meant to comment on your post regarding the pending legal action involving the Johnson's.

I should preface my comments like you have done. "As I've said before, what happened to Rheinhard was a truly terrible thing".

I did use the term, regrettable the other day and that got me into trouble. Truly terrible does sound better. So I will say what allegedly happened to Rheinhard sounds like a truly terribly thing.

I did predict an outcome like this and it was on of the reasons we pursued information that Rheinhard was active one month after the alleged event, including obtaining photographs of him at the US Transplant Games.

I like you am not aware of any impediment to discussing the matter, other than Malcolm's advice not to give Rheinhard's lawyer too much assistance by discussing strategy.

The listing is on the public record and the Clerks at the Court are quite helpful in providing further information or clarifying existing information. I believe the suit figure will ultimately be much higher, when it is considered cumilatively.

The issue of a counter suit is a possibly and the benefit (if nothing else), comes from "discovery". Simply bombarding the JC with requests to provide everything they have ever written in any form whatsoever, on the alleged event, for example.

But mounting a counter argument involving mitigation, once again relies heavily on having adequate documented evidence. Anything that is alleged must be backed up. I will use the, Honest to Whom" teaching as an example. If I or an ex member were to allege that is a practicised teaching, the Court would need to see a copy. Alternatively, you would have to get a fair number of ex members before the Court to argue that such teachings do/did exist. That could of course be countered by existing members who could argue it doesn't.

My critic the other day on the JC site might understand now why I continue to use the term, alleged. Because the matter is soon to before the Courts again and this is a civil matter, as oppposed to the previous criminal matter.

I personally believe that this case (if it proceeds) will be the biggest PR disaster the JC's have ever had. Their cause will be completely blown out of the water, even if they do ultimately win a few bucks. Particularly in light of the highly publicised, "mock trial". The sensible ones within the JC should discuss it and try and bring an end to it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2008 03:36PM by private eyes.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: July 22, 2008 08:44PM

Dear Private Eyes,

No Press is Bad David's eyes, hence IMO the litigation will continue, as no "sensible one" (should such a person exist) within the JC's has the courage (or nouce?) to stand up to David....if they had, they would already have been unceremoniously thrown out....! Hence I'm looking forward to them being "blown out of the water"! David's attorney, makes a dollar if litigation proceeds....hence his only advice to David will be that the case can be won, if only argued in the "right" way.....

Their have been some "mysterious" comments from Joe himself claiming that Brian has purposely invented the idea of the court case to "discredit" the JC's...What is your take here?

Joe is being deliberately kept in the dark? (There could be fears that this would antagonise his commitment to remain a member.)

He is purposely feeding the audience on the JC site "spin" in order to further stage manage the public image of the JC's.

The counter suit is an interesting be brought against David himself (Has he reapplied for US Citizenship, since dual citizenship became available to Australian citizens.....if not, it may not be possible to arraign him, I would have thought?).....some people who post are not comfortable with employing the legal options, that may be open to them....they had best be left out altogether of such an approach, I would think.

I would personally still prefer a criminal conviction (or two) to proceed any civil'd just be on far stronger ground.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: yasmin ()
Date: July 22, 2008 09:09PM

Hey Zeusor, just wanted to say something in defence of apostate and the other posters here: for many people leaving a group, finding someone to help them understand and talk things through is vital.
Personally, I wish someone like Apostate had been around when I decided to leave my group: his compassion and genuine caring for group members comes across strong.
You are great at finding out info,, but with respect here,I think you do not fully realize that there is a great value in the compassion and willingness to discuss issues that Apostate and others show. all the best, Yasmin

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: July 22, 2008 09:11PM

Dear Zeusor and PE,

I (and "countless others"?.....perhaps just the heavenly hosts above) are truly indebted to you, for the all work that you have put in, both on and off this site and at great trouble to yourselves...verifying the sordid details of David's past....time and time again you have put him to the IS greatly appreciated. God bless you for it!

The jcs.xjcs site was intended to be an "open forum" for dialogue not a "hotbed of revolutionary thought"......I'm personally content to let those who post there, do so to their enjoyment (as the existing individual JC members never will....vainly thinking the site to be somehow "below" them).....those who post on that site are not obliged to become "involved" in any wider strategies that tackle David more "robustly" than they might care for (.....and at the same time I'll thank those who post on that site not to hypocritically disparage me, with their own particular prejudices, for going about things in the "wrong way" from their perspectives).

It takes a lot of strength of character to be able to walk out of a little world where everyone persistently assures you that YOU are actually the problem, not the minor "issues" that you are seeking to hide your inner bitterness behind.......exmembers are likely to be strongly individualistic and independent (...that's how they got to BE ex-members!)

A multiplicity of approaches may ultimately work to the good of the wider cause (however defined).....

HOWEVER, (speaking entirely in an individual capacity) this particular ex-member would like to say that:

I fully support all your efforts Zeusor and PE, to research and investigate McKay and can only pray that in some small way, I may be able to emulate you.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: July 23, 2008 05:47AM

Yasmin thanks for the encouraging words.

What is going on here guys? It seems that some sort of shift has occurred where now a website where exmembers and their supporters post is being scrutinised. What is that? Even the "cult" word has been used. Truly a joke, and no doubt plays right into Dave's hands validating what he says. Are you sure Zeus is not working for Dave? Zeus incredulousy enough has said previously that he likes Dave's teachings, only certain actions. Way to go Zeus. Have you and PE become bored at Dave's absence and decided to dine upon exmembers? I suppose it is a good thing because it should make it easier for current JC members to visit us and post if they can see the great Zeus, and most hypocritically anonymous of all posters, PE, having a go at it.

Good for you Malcolm that you are offering some support to PE and Zeus. Have fun with that. Maybe you can join in the "let's dance and piss on Dave's grave" scenario offered up by Zeus. I will state this again for Zeus, PE, and now you Malcolm. I do not hate Dave, or think he is the embodiment of absolute evil. So have at it do what you may with that.

PE, I find your paternalistic double speak so reminiscient of what Dave does it is quite repelling. I am glad that you and Zeus can get your relationship back on line. Good luck with that. I wish you both all the best.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2008 06:02AM by apostate.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: July 23, 2008 06:31AM

I think that David McKay is little more than a small-time pimp, a glorified con-man, a child molester/spiritual pervert/chickenhawk type who does what he does legally and that he isn't even really a very good "cult leader." He is crude, amateurish, and unoriginal. But all that does not make him less dangerous. He's also sociopathic, mean-spirited and extraordinarily cruel. The blunt weapon is more damaging than the sharp one, though it is also slower and not as efficient.

My position, simply put, is that DM is basically a bad guy. And I guess that I always just took it for granted that you do too, I assumed so. Are you saying that you don't think of him that way?

You have mastered the DM style of putting words in people's mouths, exaggerating things, and playing up the histrionics, apostate. Also I see DM-style oversimplifications of my position. I really don't think you are as far removed from DM as you seem to think.

For one thing, I never said that I "see nothing wrong" with DM's teachings. I said that it is not what he says that bothers me as much as what he does. So where does "see nothing wrong" come from?


And I did not say anything about "cowardly ex-members." I said that IMO some of the ex-members were all talk and were being cowards about confronting DM and the situation more directly.

Also, I have actually been very critical of DM's teachings. I have actually stated the opposite of "see nothing wrong." So your statement in that respect is bulls**t. Where are you coming from on that?


You have never liked me or my involvement in this and have always given me s**t. Aren't you just trying to smear me now that you have nothing else to say, no other reasoned defense, so you impugn PE's and my motives and assume the worst about us? Just go for the trusty old ad hominem, right? We're trying to help, man. It can't be all on your terms or all on mine, we both know that.

We are on the same team, the same side as it were, and need to compromise with one another. Let's not let this degenerate into "us" vs. "them." There is no reason for us to bicker and is not a personal matter between we two.

All I said was that at the end of the day, we're talking about doing something to stop DM and we are accomplishing that, moving closer to that goal, producing evidence. You, sir, are talking and talking some more, trying to silence us, criticizing me, putting me down, and making fun of what we are trying to do, but at least we are really accomplishing something toward the stated goal. We actually have a good chance of (basically) shutting him down. What exactly is it that is your goal in this endeavor?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2008 06:33AM by zeuszor.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: July 23, 2008 08:01AM

I am doing a cut and paste like Zeus.

BEGIN PASTE ..........................................................................................................................................................................................

A few responses for you Sekto,

1. Are you so blind that you cannot see this comment: "I said that IMO some of the ex-members were all talk and were being cowards about confronting DM and the situation more directly" is calling us cowardly ex members?

2. David Mckay is not a child molester, and you would be well advised to stop such public accusations.

3. Thanks for restating that you see nothing really wrong or bothersome with Dave's teachings by making this comment: I said that it is not what he says that bothers me as much as what he does.

4. I am not trying to smear you. I do not like you now, I did, but now I do not. Why? Because of your ridiculous accusations (see point 1 and 2), and over the top comments.

5. I do not need to compromise with you. I am not on your side.

6. You are the one turning this into an us and them dichtomy.

7. I do not intend to be "far removed from DM". I have never claimed to be his enemy. I am his friend.

8. I will not stop talking

END PASTE...................................................................................................................................................................................................

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: July 23, 2008 12:14PM

Apostate, I respect you and never said that I dislike you. It's not a personal matter between you and me.

No, DM is not a child molester. But I think of him as a type of one, a type of spiritual pedophile, yes.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2008 12:18PM by zeuszor.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: July 23, 2008 01:43PM

7. I do not intend to be "far removed from DM". I have never claimed to be his enemy. I am his friend.

This is an incredible comment. I am truly incredulous. With friends like you, who needs enemies Apostate? Are you kidding or serious? Your friend? He isolates his victims from their families and friends, manipulates people and tries to divide parents from their children, taunts parents after he has their children in his orbit, exploits and abuses everybody around him, and all this not to mention what he did to you and his own son and family in '96? And you still call him a friend? What kind of comment is that? What about what he is doing to the Johnsons? He takes their son, persuades him to leave home before formally graduating from school, sent Rino to do his dirty work, whips Joe on TV, now he has Rino suing Joe's family, he taunts and punishes families and others who oppose him and you call him your friend? There is nothing friendly about DM and people like DM do not have friends, they only see opportunities. He is your friend? You must be kidding or something.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2008 01:53PM by zeuszor.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.