The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cherenuff1
()
Date: February 12, 2007 12:20PM
Quote
counselor47
Nathan, and others like you, my wife asked me to post this quote.
“When I set out to write the book, I had no intention of starting a war with Ole Anthony or his group, I only wanted to write about my experience in order to provide an alternative perspective on the Trinity Foundation other than the one which has been publicized in the media. Additionally, I wanted to write something that would help others recover from a cultic or spiritually abusive experience. I hoped that by sharing my story former members of Trinity Foundation and other similar groups would begin to heal from their experience."
I absolutely have no problems with this at all. In fact, I thought the book was well written. The only thing that I have a problem with is that the book is extremely one-sided. Yes...it is written from a disgruntled perspective, I understand that. Why not put in the non-disgruntled perspective as well or put in interviews from members like me or ex-members that don't have a problem with Trinity?
My problem comes from people who have never heard of Trinity Foundation but then decide to read your book and make a blanket judgement on Trinity due to one book and Doug, Wendy or any others never telling these people that they should do research or telling these people not to make such judgements. If I wrote a book about how Doug and some of the ex-members use to be and what they have done and just put in the bad stuff, that would be...sad, cruel and hypocritical. Basically, it would not be right.
For example: Let's say my mother, who is a strict Catholic, reads this book without talking to me. She would most likely immediately start proceedings to take my children away from me. Is that fair Doug? Would she be in the right to do this due to her reading this book and never having met Trinity or known my place in Trinity?
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: February 12, 2007 01:58PM
Hi, Cherenuff. Glad to have you back, but it would be nice if you had something new to say. Your post about "The Ten Warning Signs" is an [b:9c05cd22a8]exact copy[/b:9c05cd22a8] of something you posted earlier on this discussion thread. Posting the same thing over and over again is not really conversing—it is more like an attempt to shout the other guy down. You have already said that you do not, based on your own experience, think that Trinity can be called a cult. I accept that, and I would never presume to tell you what your experience is. However, Wendy and I had a bad experience with Trinity, and we have a right to tell our story in our own words. And, we are not the only ones who have had bad experiences. Wendy did formal interviews with over a dozen people when she was doing the research for her book (all taped and transcribed) and talked with dozens more, all of whom had the same bad experiences. Is it your contention that these people and their testimonies somehow don't count?
Also, I disagree with your characterizing the book as being “one-sided.” Granted, it expresses a coherent viewpoint, but I think Wendy took pains to be fair throughout. However, Ole has enjoyed a remarkable run of positively glowing press lasting at least 20 years. Wendy's book, and now Glenna's article, have at least brought some balance to the discussion about Trinity Foundation. There are still probably 100 times as many people who read the [i:9c05cd22a8]New Yorker[/i:9c05cd22a8] article (now, [i:9c05cd22a8]there[/i:9c05cd22a8] is something that was one-sided) as have read Wendy's book, so I don't think Trinity's public image is in any danger of being excessively tarnished.
And the bit about your mother reading the book and starting proceedings to take away your children is a red herring. There is nothing in the book that she could use to justify that. That isn’t a serious argument.
Also, I disagree with your characterizing the book as being “one-sided.” Granted, it expresses a coherent viewpoint, but I think Wendy took pains to be fair throughout. However, Ole has enjoyed a remarkable run of positively glowing press lasting at least 20 years. Wendy's book, and now Glenna's article, have at least brought some balance to the discussion about Trinity Foundation. There are still probably 100 times as many people who read the [i:9c05cd22a8]New Yorker[/i:9c05cd22a8] article (now, [i:9c05cd22a8]there[/i:9c05cd22a8] is something that was one-sided) as have read Wendy's book, so I don't think Trinity's public image is in any danger of being excessively tarnished.
And the bit about your mother reading the book and starting proceedings to take away your children is a red herring. There is nothing in the book that she could use to justify that. That isn’t a serious argument.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cherenuff1
()
Date: February 12, 2007 11:00PM
Quote
counselor47
Hi, Cherenuff. Glad to have you back, but it would be nice if you had something new to say. Your post about "The Ten Warning Signs" is an [b:3791b5098e]exact copy[/b:3791b5098e] of something you posted earlier on this discussion thread. Posting the same thing over and over again is not really conversing—it is more like an attempt to shout the other guy down. You have already said that you do not, based on your own experience, think that Trinity can be called a cult. I accept that, and I would never presume to tell you what your experience is. However, Wendy and I had a bad experience with Trinity, and we have a right to tell our story in our own words. And, we are not the only ones who have had bad experiences. Wendy did formal interviews with over a dozen people when she was doing the research for her book (all taped and transcribed) and talked with dozens more, all of whom had the same bad experiences. Is it your contention that these people and their testimonies somehow don't count?
Also, I disagree with your characterizing the book as being “one-sided.” Granted, it expresses a coherent viewpoint, but I think Wendy took pains to be fair throughout. However, Ole has enjoyed a remarkable run of positively glowing press lasting at least 20 years. Wendy's book, and now Glenna's article, have at least brought some balance to the discussion about Trinity Foundation. There are still probably 100 times as many people who read the [i:3791b5098e]New Yorker[/i:3791b5098e] article (now, [i:3791b5098e]there[/i:3791b5098e] is something that was one-sided) as have read Wendy's book, so I don't think Trinity's public image is in any danger of being excessively tarnished.
And the bit about your mother reading the book and starting proceedings to take away your children is a red herring. There is nothing in the book that she could use to justify that. That isn’t a serious argument.
I added the warning signs since it seems to me there were some new people posting that only read Wendy's book yet never heard of Trinity before and had made a blanket judgement.
I don't discredit other ex-members experiences and hope they find peace through all of this. I was just wanting to get the point across that to judge other people based on one thing that you have read is being small -minded. I've urged Nathan to read Wendy's book but so far no one else is urging seeking or any other posters to read more, email or talk to anyone at Trinity to have a more balanced view.
What's ironic is that Nathan has made the effort to read the book, ask you guys questions, ask Trinity questions and did some heavy research into Trinity. YET, the other posters that are new here HAVE NOT and they go along with the bashing ride yet not you nor Zeusor have pointed this out to them. Why?
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cherenuff1
()
Date: February 12, 2007 11:07PM
Quote
cherenuff1Quote
counselor47
Hi, Cherenuff. Glad to have you back, but it would be nice if you had something new to say.
As for having something new to say....Back at ya. I read all the posts that I missed and you, Zuesor and even Nathan just state the same over and over. For those here that are new to this thread this is what it is about.
1. Promoting a book
2. Brian ranting
3. Nathan challenging
4. Brian ranting
5. Nathan challening again
6. Brian ranting and raving...again
7. Counselor adding some fact from the book and promoting it.
8. Me telling my experience again
9. Brian Ranting and raving...again.
10 Me harping on my experiences again.
I think you all get the gist. Nathan and I are tired of beating a dead horse and are willing to let things go. You've got your opinion, we've got ours and I guess thats that.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cultaware
()
Date: February 13, 2007 12:01AM
Cherenuff1
Please don't forget to let me know what Ole says about the hotseat notes.
Thanks,
cultaware
Please don't forget to let me know what Ole says about the hotseat notes.
Thanks,
cultaware
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
counselor47
()
Date: February 13, 2007 12:36AM
Quote
no one else is urging seeking or any other posters to read more, email or talk to anyone at Trinity to have a more balanced view.
95% of what has been written about Trinity has been positive--excessively so. Wendy and Glenna are the ones who have tried to bring some balance to the discussion. However, I do not think it is on them to try to make Trinity's case, as Trinity seems to be perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. Nevertheless, I think both of them took pains to be fair and balanced in what they said--I know first hand that at least Wendy did. She did not say anything at all if it was not verified by at least two witnesses. There were many, many negative things about Trinity and Ole that she learned in the course of her research that did not make it into the book. You are mischaracterizing her book by saying that it is "one-sided" or unfair in some way.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: February 13, 2007 01:07AM
Quote
cherenuff1Quote
zeuszor
Hey, I do not have time to comment deeply right now because I am getting ready to leave but will comment later. But, I will say that I have heard Ole say, "You are the Antichrist" lots of times. I do not misunderstand. That's what he said. He is reconditioning your identity and teaching you to give him way too much access to your mind. When he says that you can't trust your own mind he is implying that you CAN trust [i:0c5562f865]his[/i:0c5562f865] mind. I don't misunderstand it at all.
Brian...Brian...I don't know how many times that Ole has said. "Your MIND is the antichrist." WE are God's children. The mind feeds your own ego and tells you to be shamed, draws you away from God's grace. His teaching is simple. We, as humans, have failed and our minds and egos are the antichrist. BUT, we as children of God have been saved by the blood of Christ and God's grace to come to know him.
He teaches that we are perfect in God. To not listen to the mind that tells us that there is shame in ourselves or that we have unfinished work. We are perfect. Christ died for us. He shed blood for us so that we can live within God.
Is this a terrible doctrine? I don't think it is. Unfortunately, Ole is more forceful in his words and like I said before, he isn't the most suave or gentle of teachers but I believe in this doctrine.
This is cultic thinking. Ole's teaching is based on a lot of negative and incorrect presuppositions, such as the assumption that the mind will always bind us with guilt and fear:
Quote
To not listen to the mind that tells us that there is shame in ourselves or that we have unfinished work.
[b:0c5562f865]Well, that's just not true. The mind is not an instrument of shame and guilt. Ole's teaching is. Ole told you you should be ashamed, not the Bible. In fact, Scripture says that it is one of our primary means of developing a loving relationship with God.[/b:0c5562f865]
"You are the Antichrist", or "Your mind is the Antichrist"...it's still incorrect thinking, unscriptural teaching. It's not Biblical. There is no shame in using your mind.
[b:0c5562f865]
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.[/b:0c5562f865]
So far as I can tell, nowhere in Scripture does it say that one's mind is the enemy. If I am wrong, please show me where it does. In fact, Jesus says (above) that rather than being any impediment to one's spiritual life, something to be overcome, one's mind ought to be untilized properly toward developing a loving relationship with The Father. We are to love God WITH our minds. Our intelligence ought to be trained and used to cultivate an understanding of the things of the Spirit:
[b:0c5562f865]
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/b:0c5562f865]
The mind and intelligence are gifts and we ought to use them rightly. They are the only means we have of receiving and realizing the things of the Spirit. Parts of the process of sanctification do not include being liberated from the mind, intelligence, and ego. What "feels good" or "feels right" is not an indicator of what is Truth. Relying too heavily on one's intuition is not a complete means of discenrnment:
[b:0c5562f865]
Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? [/b:0c5562f865]
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cherenuff1
()
Date: February 13, 2007 04:13AM
Quote
Well, that's just not true. The mind is not an instrument of shame and guilt. Ole's teaching is. Ole told you you should be ashamed, not the Bible. In fact, Scripture says that it is one of our primary means of developing a loving relationship with God.
"You are the Antichrist", or "Your mind is the Antichrist"...it's still incorrect thinking, unscriptural teaching. It's not Biblical. There is no shame in using your mind.
Did you EVER listen when you went to Bible Studies? Ole does not teach shame. Shame comes from man (ego). Man judges what is shameful and what is not. Ole teaches that to accept God fully, one must RID our thoughts and mind of shame so that we can live fully in him.
Quote
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
Right On! With ALL thy mind. Not just part of it but with everything. Drop the shame, guilt and the sense of ego and you can serve and love the Lord with ALL they mind.
Quote
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Again, excellent examples that if your mind is focused on yourself and your shame or your accomplishments, you can’t give the Lord ALL of it. You also might want to take another gander at that last part. If I recall, you were going to be the first one to ‘Dance” on Ole’s grave.
Quote
So far as I can tell, nowhere in Scripture does it say that one's mind is the enemy. If I am wrong, please show me where it does. In fact, Jesus says (above) that rather than being any impediment to one's spiritual life, something to be overcome, one's mind ought to be untilized properly toward developing a loving relationship with The Father. We are to love God WITH our minds. Our intelligence ought to be trained and used to cultivate an understanding of the things of the Spirit:
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The mind and intelligence are gifts and we ought to use them rightly. They are the only means we have of receiving and realizing the things of the Spirit. Parts of the process of sanctification do not include being liberated from the mind, intelligence, and ego. What "feels good" or "feels right" is not an indicator of what is Truth. Relying too heavily on one's intuition is not a complete means of discenrnment:
Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
You have just hit on what Ole teaches with this last. The mind and intelligence is given to us to seek the truth and to be one with God. Trinity teaches that to wallow in self whether it be shame, disappointment or glory and deeds, takes us away from God since we cannot focus on self while emptying ourselves to Him.
[u:78eda7c3fd][b:78eda7c3fd]Matthew 16:24-28[/b:78eda7c3fd][/u:78eda7c3fd]
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
[i:78eda7c3fd][b:78eda7c3fd](Here Jesus called Peter Satan. Peter wasn’t Satan persay. Peter’s mind was).[/b:78eda7c3fd][/i:78eda7c3fd]
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
[u:78eda7c3fd][b:78eda7c3fd]Deuteronomy 29:3-5 [/b:78eda7c3fd] [/u:78eda7c3fd]
3 the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet
[u:78eda7c3fd][b:78eda7c3fd]Read all of Proverbs 11.[/b:78eda7c3fd][/u:78eda7c3fd]
Basically...it all comes down to one thing. Orignal Sin. Satan tempted Eve. Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge. With this, they became self-aware. They found shame in being nude, thus they covered themselves. They were aware now of shame, regret and self-pity, enough that they "ran" from God to 'hide'.
Trinity teaches that we no longer need to 'hide' from God. That with Christs blood and his sacrifice on the cross, that our fall from grace is forgiven. In turn, we open ALL of our heart, soul and mind to the Lord.
As to the mind being evil. We, as humans, are inherently evil. Here's a personal example: I dont' tithe, yet I [i:78eda7c3fd]"intellectually"[/i:78eda7c3fd] understand that the Lord comes first in all things. I understand that I am shunning my ego and the world by giving 10% of myself to the Lord. Yet, MY MIND, tells me that I would rather have a car or that I'd rather have food. MY MIND tells me that "I'll tithe next time". MY MIND is turned away from God though I intellectually am aware of this. My selfishness is stemmed from what my mind is telling me. I have not given ALL of my heart, soul and mind to the Lord since I've allowed my mind to justify why I should not tithe.
.....er...I think I'll go tithe now....[/i]
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
cherenuff1
()
Date: February 13, 2007 04:38AM
This whole thread reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister-in-law. We were discussing Trinity Doctrine vs. her Baptist Doctrine and it became heated on both sides.
After about an hour or two of religious philosphy, we came to the conclusion that in the end, we both believed that we are sinners and Christ died for our sins. We both believed that God is an awesome God and that our lives must be lived with complete abandon to Him in order to serve Him. We both believe that we are saved and will be taken unto his bosom on our deaths.
We then laughed. We came to the conclusion that even though the paths we both took to get to that conclusion were different, it all came to the same end.
After about an hour or two of religious philosphy, we came to the conclusion that in the end, we both believed that we are sinners and Christ died for our sins. We both believed that God is an awesome God and that our lives must be lived with complete abandon to Him in order to serve Him. We both believe that we are saved and will be taken unto his bosom on our deaths.
We then laughed. We came to the conclusion that even though the paths we both took to get to that conclusion were different, it all came to the same end.
The Trinity Foundation of Dallas, Texas
Posted by:
Mark Scheiderer
()
Date: February 13, 2007 10:05AM
cherenuff 1-
I'm using my real name. [www.eth-s.com] explains part of my past - in a cult.
Pete Evans from TFI contacted me several years ago - TFI was looking into the cult I was in, ironically - and we spoke several times on the phone and communicated several times by e-mail. Something didn't sit quite right with me in his descriptions of how life went on at TFI, and in what I read in the assinine "The Door" magazine. When I read Ole's testimony somewhere - I can't find it at the time - I was totally convinced that he is NOT, NOT, NOT genuinely converted. His ramblings from the morning Bible studies that are at TFI's site only confirmed it. No wonder he says that Bible study, prayer etc. is a waste of time to better yourself as a Christian - if people at TFI WERE reading their Bibles regularly on their own, they would realize how "off" Ole' and TFI are. <<<< By the way, that is exactly how God opened my eyes to the fact I was in a cult. The Lord sovereignly put it in my heart to stay in His Word, and He sovereignly opened my eyes and delivered me.>>>>
Since some are saying that the Duncans didn't follow Matt. 18 and are therefore dissing Wendy's book, my interest was piqued. IMHO, some counter-cult experts have turned into cult-apologists in regard to this matter.
I'm reading Wendy's excellent book for the second time. Her writing and insights are excellent, and there is no doubt in my mind that TFI is a cult.
( The endorsers on the back of the book only strengthen that opinion.)
You say you've been connected with TFI off and on for the past 15 years.
If that's the case, don't bother to try to dialogue with me. "Fence riders" are impossible to reason with and do nothing more to muck up the conversation. I've seen that too many times at other ex-cult forums.
Hope I've satisfied your curiousity and the curiousity of those within TFI who are reading this, as well as those who've made money due to their past affiliation with TFI.
I'll close with one other note: The FACT that some have made money off of their affiliation with TFI - and I'm talking about those who've never lived there as part of the community - is the real reason, IMO, why they are trying so hard to discredit the Duncans. It's not about truth. It's about saving face.
Mark
I'm using my real name. [www.eth-s.com] explains part of my past - in a cult.
Pete Evans from TFI contacted me several years ago - TFI was looking into the cult I was in, ironically - and we spoke several times on the phone and communicated several times by e-mail. Something didn't sit quite right with me in his descriptions of how life went on at TFI, and in what I read in the assinine "The Door" magazine. When I read Ole's testimony somewhere - I can't find it at the time - I was totally convinced that he is NOT, NOT, NOT genuinely converted. His ramblings from the morning Bible studies that are at TFI's site only confirmed it. No wonder he says that Bible study, prayer etc. is a waste of time to better yourself as a Christian - if people at TFI WERE reading their Bibles regularly on their own, they would realize how "off" Ole' and TFI are. <<<< By the way, that is exactly how God opened my eyes to the fact I was in a cult. The Lord sovereignly put it in my heart to stay in His Word, and He sovereignly opened my eyes and delivered me.>>>>
Since some are saying that the Duncans didn't follow Matt. 18 and are therefore dissing Wendy's book, my interest was piqued. IMHO, some counter-cult experts have turned into cult-apologists in regard to this matter.
I'm reading Wendy's excellent book for the second time. Her writing and insights are excellent, and there is no doubt in my mind that TFI is a cult.
( The endorsers on the back of the book only strengthen that opinion.)
You say you've been connected with TFI off and on for the past 15 years.
If that's the case, don't bother to try to dialogue with me. "Fence riders" are impossible to reason with and do nothing more to muck up the conversation. I've seen that too many times at other ex-cult forums.
Hope I've satisfied your curiousity and the curiousity of those within TFI who are reading this, as well as those who've made money due to their past affiliation with TFI.
I'll close with one other note: The FACT that some have made money off of their affiliation with TFI - and I'm talking about those who've never lived there as part of the community - is the real reason, IMO, why they are trying so hard to discredit the Duncans. It's not about truth. It's about saving face.
Mark
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.