Quote
I don't think that was a straw man, I think that is my admitting that words are not enough, no matter how good they are. That has been one of your main points to me, that I do not know this man's true character even though his words may seem wise. I have no interest in defending a man who is abusive, deceitful, and manipulative. Believe me, if Ole really is this monster you say he is, I will join you in exposing it. On the same token I want to discern what is just here, and not be idle if a man who has done good things is being attacked unfairly. The truth in this matter is difficult to see.
You seem to take a very black and white view of things. I do not think I have tried to portray Ole as a monster, just a very flawed man who has created a dysfunctional group that has managed to hurt a number of people and then refused to honestly examine their own behavior. I think it is a false dichotomy you have set up, and this may be why you are having so much trouble. Could it be that Ole is someone has done [i:df32c8f22f]both[/i:df32c8f22f] good [i:df32c8f22f]and[/i:df32c8f22f] bad things? However, if he has done some good things that does not invalidate our critique of him and Trinity Foundation. They also need to take responsibility for the mistakes they have made.
Quote
How can you say Trinity is using me, and then expect me to be your go-to man with your list of questions Brian? Looks to me like you are doing the same thing you blame Trinity for. They have answered me all those questions you wrote, and more without protest. (the only specific one I don't remember asking directly was the first one).
If Trinity has already answered those questions, I would be curious to know what they said. I mean, it only seems fair for you to share their answers with us in this public forum, since you seem to be sharing what we say with them.
Quote
So what do you think of the idea of me posting Jackie Anon's comments here Doug with her permission? She is someone who has apparently known you as well as Trinity for some time.
She does not know us very well—she is certainly not as connected to us as she is with the folks at Trinity, for whom she has done contract work. I do not think it would be appropriate to post that here, as it is basically a doctrinal thing, and culteducation.com is not supposed to be a place to debate religious doctrine. In brief, she recounts all of Trinity’s talking points in saying that we did not follow the right procedures laid out in Matthew 18 for resolving disputes among brethren, and that we should pull all the copies of our book and go back to Trinity and work all this out.
We have discussed this interpretation of Matthew 18 with several ministers and mature Christians, and none of them say that Jackie’s is an appropriate interpretation of that Scripture. I would be happy to discuss all of this with you via email, but I do not think we should get into a discussion of how to interpret a passage in the Bible in this forum.
Leaving aside for the moment the interpretation of Matthew 18, I don’t think you could find any cult expert who would say that it is incumbent upon the person leaving a spiritually abusive group to have to go back to them and explain what all of the problems are and why you felt you had to leave. That would just be setting yourself up to be abused all over again. I would appreciate Rick’s thoughts on this if he wants to weigh in.