And a not too subtle attempt at that! I guess cherenuff1 is the bad cop to Skippy's good cop. All the while the wagons are tightly circled around Ole. It is ironic that this group which lives to expose hypocrisy will admit none of its own. It has become the very thing it hates the most. I wonder if anyone there notices?
cultaware

People there know, but they cannot admit it to themselves. If they did, then they would have to do something about it.

Good point, though, about them becoming exactly what they hate. Trinity has turned out to be just as hypocritical as the televangelists they investigate.

Yeah, and Ole Anthony is the biggest fraud of them all.

From: [www.hss.caltech.edu]

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

Hi all. I just lent a friend my copy of Stout's [i:517bddd9f3]The Sociopath Next Door[/i:517bddd9f3] in an effort to help him understand the motivations of his particularly difficult boss at work. Excellent book, that one. Can anybody else offer me any insights and/or advice toward identifying and dealing with sociopaths in everyday life? Moderator, what do you say?

Quote
zeuszor
Hi all. I just lent a friend my copy of Stout's [i:e0061dcaa8]The Sociopath Next Door[/i:e0061dcaa8] in an effort to help him understand the motivations of his particularly difficult boss at work. Excellent book, that one. Can anybody else offer me any insights and/or advice toward identifying and dealing with sociopaths in everyday life? Moderator, what do you say?

If you suspect someone of being a sociopath the best advice is to have as little to do with them as possible. If your friend thinks his boss is truly a sociopath--as opposed to an everyday, run-of-the-mill jerk--I would suggest he start looking for another job ASAP.

That's the thing--my friend was fired over some trumped-up BS and is now involved in wrongful-termination litigation over it. We are exploring the idea of his boss being a sociopath as an explanation for his cutthroat behavior. When I described to my friend the traits of a sociopath, he lit up as if I was reading his boss' biography. Do you think it could be pertinent to his case of the man is a sociopath?

I doubt whether it is pertinent from a legal point of view, but your friend might find it helpful in terms of helping him understand his boss's behavior. Legally, I think the issue is going to be how your friend was actually treated by his boss, not what the boss's personality issues are.

In an attempt to get this discussion back on track, I want to pull us back to the topic that I started the whole thread with, which is what can be learned about Trinity Foundation by looking at its attitude toward and treatment of its former members. In particular, I would like to examine what has happened with the shredding of the hot seat notes and how the whole thing was handled in the context of this larger discussion.

I began this thread by quoting from Rick Ross’s interview with [i:1d66977ceb]The Door[/i:1d66977ceb] magazine, in which he explains that one of the common denominators of cultic groups is how they treat their former members—often deriding and even shunning them. If you left a normal, healthy church, you would not automatically become an enemy or a pariah to the people who were still there. For example, I am now a member of the Episcopal Church. However, if I decided that the Methodist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or some other denomination better represented my beliefs, I could leave the EC and go join one of those other churches while still retaining my friendships with people in the Episcopal Church. Heck, I believe I could do this and still remain on friendly terms with my priest.

However, in cultic groups, like Trinity Foundation, this does not seem to be possible. To Trinity, those who have left have failed both God and them in a profound way and are no longer seen as disciples. Indeed, Trinity dehumanizes its former members by constantly referring to them as “dead bodies, “ghosts,” or, “almost disciples.” This constant process of dehumanization does at least two things: First, it instills a phobia in everyone who is still there about ever leaving the group. There is a fear that if you leave the group that you will be seen as being no longer part of the elect, that it will be evidence that you are not chosen for salvation. Second, it causes the people there to be extremely wary of contact with former members. They are taught that if you “touch a dead body” then you become Levitically unclean, so there is huge fear about having any contact with former members.

I should point out that in the case of Trinity Foundation, perhaps in contrast to some other, less subtle cultic groups, they are kind of sophisticated about how they do this. The leadership is careful, especially when talking to outsiders, to not be too blatant about these particular doctrines. Nevertheless, this is an attitude that pervades the culture and informs how the former members are treated.

Turning to the case in point, I think it would be hard for any objective observer not to notice the palpable condescension in the manner in which cherenuff1 addresses the former members. We are somehow bad people because we have chosen to leave the group, so it is really okay for her to be insulting and sarcastic to us. After all, we are less than human. Bad as that is, however, I do not upset myself about her manner, as I know she is just manifesting a viewpoint that she derives from the leadership. I [i:1d66977ceb]am[/i:1d66977ceb] somewhat perturbed that neither John nor Gary could bother themselves to make a simple phone call or dash off a little email to let me know that the notes were destroyed—a fact that well illustrates what I am saying here. It also shows, IMO, that destroying the notes was not about them doing the right thing by the former members, but rather containing something that had the potential for generating some very bad PR. They know that Ole make a huge mistake when he gave some copies of those notes to Glenna (thereby “violating the seal of the confessional”), and they needed to do some damage control. Trinity is an unhealthy, toxic, cultic group, and it shows through even when they are doing something that, had it been handled properly, could have been a somewhat positive thing.

You are right counselor47. Her sarcasm and insults show the spirit of the group. Even Johns laughing at Brian shows he has no remorse or respect for ex-members. Don't expect John or Gary to break ranks in any manner. They both probably think they have too much to lose. They are wrong of course. They have lost their freedom in exchange for a little power. It is truely sad.
cultaware