Earlier in this thread, Nathan, you asked me if it would be okay if you posted a link to this thing that Jackie Alnor wrote. I told you that I did not think it would be appropriate, because that is just an extension of Trinity’s ad hominem attack on us. When a messenger comes to point out the problems in a cultic organization, they switch the subject and make the messenger the issue.
The topic of this thread is Trinity Foundation and the cultic nature of that group. You are welcome to disagree with our contention that Trinity is a cult, and to vigorously argue your position. However, when you get into these kinds of ad hominem attacks, that is not cricket. Whether or not we followed the right procedures in separating from this cult is not even relevant.
However, as I was considering all of this earlier today, I remembered a long meeting I had shortly after leaving Trinity with Gary B, who was the leader of the particular Bible study/subgroup of which I was a member (we called them “Seder groups”). I met him at a court hearing that was for one of the other members who had gotten into some trouble, and I was a witness for his defense. We had to wait a couple of hours (give or take a little—I cannot remember exactly how long), so he and I discussed what I felt the problems at Trinity were. We did not pull out the Scripture and pronounce, “This is a Matthew 18 meeting,” but it turned out to be a [i:e4bc75a85e]de facto[/i:e4bc75a85e] one, nonetheless. There have been other communications, but that was the longest face to face conversation I have had with leadership since leaving. The point is, we have clearly let Trinity know what we think the problems are in several forums. This thing about us not following Matthew 18 is a non-starter.