Thanks Rensil

Yes, the arrogant belief that their own spiritual insight is more important than everything else, including scripture, is mind-boggling. Jesus was the one who spoke to people His disciples turned away! In Struthers it is the opposite - most of the congregation would speak to the contributors to this forum (unless ordered not to!) but the leaders would not. That shows just how far they have strayed from any real spirituality.

The problem is that their starting point for everything is that they are infallible. If you start form that point, then what Diana says makes sense. She is infallible therefore she looks to scripture for an example of someone who is wrongly accused and twists it to apply to her.

Look what happens if you start by assuming you are not infallible however. In that case, you might take the example of King David, who made a serious mistake which was brought to his attention in public by the prophet Nathan. What evidence does Diana have that is it the first of these scenarios that apply – that she is falsely accused? – none that I can see.

It is back to the discussions we had some pages ago on this forum – is it ok to say that allegations should be ignored because they can’t possibly be true, or might it just be a bit more sensible to say we will have a look first to see if there is any truth in them?

As has been pointed out here before, even Peter made mistakes as head of the church, and he was confronted over them – but the leaders see themselves as better than that, never ever needing to question whether their actions have in any way been wrong.

The evidence that the leaders are so much more spiritual than everyone else is non-existent except in their own minds.

Like others, I welcome the current review, but I think OSCR will have their work cut out on this one. Let’s say for example that they recommend that Struthers should look into a particular complaint. I can see them setting up a panel to do that and interviewing people. Let’s say for example the complaint is against Diana and there are two witnesses X and Y. They set up a panel of Grace Gault and Jennifer Jack and they listen to the complaint and the evidence. They then listen to Daina’s evidence, which is that God told her to do this. Ah, the panel decides, we know there is evidence from these misguided humans X and Y, but we have evidence form God Himself – how can we argue with that? The complaint is not upheld.

The same would apply if there was an issue about fair recruitment. Let’s say they are advertising for a business manager and three people apply – one with a business degree from Harvard, one with ten years of experience managing church finances and ten years as a Bursar in a school, and the third who has no qualifications or experience but is a member of the congregation.

They agree the criteria, interview the candidates and evaluate the evidence, then God tells them to appoint the third person. Well, you can’t argue with God, can you!

So, while I welcome the review, I am not yet convinced that it will have any real impact. There is a real danger that Struthers simply go through the motions and set up all of the processes and procedures, but the underlying decision-making is still the same.

ThePetitor, I am pretty sure charity status is the least of their worries. Yep, of course they will "pass" inspections and instigate "changes" wherever they have to.
Thanks to brave survivors here the word has spread and awareness is up. I am definitely no gambler but I'm guessing they will be reduced to the absurd core. Back to just a house-size group of the equally misguided.
There was plenty chance to answer here. The silence and lack of admission or apologies, well that's out of fear. Don't pretend to be above anything when it is good old-fashioned fear that you will have to account for misdemeanors and crimes against humans. (Mind you...I don't fancy a fall from such a high and holy platform..)
But this forum is being seen by more everyday. Raising awareness and, no, I don't see hatred spouted here, and I don't see that others who are fact-finding here will form the opinion that we are a very minorpart of smc story.
So I'm suggesting ever-decreasing circles lead ultimately to the rotten core. And that's where the criminal charges have to be faced, as we all know, time is not a factor...Also, when whittled down to the absolute core leadership, these things show a tendency to implode anyway. How long can fanatics share floor space? Depends on how alike they are.
Having interpretted themselves so far from the truth, they must each have their own rationale. The distance between branches is all that has stopped further disintegration/breakaways. Put all them leaders in the same room for a day and see how long before the cracks turn to wedges. We have seen it before now.
The leadership refusal to engage here is probably their most laudable failure. It is definitely their most seen. In the long run, it has probably saved us all some effort, and will surely not show them in a good light, ever, to anyone.
So they may muster up to pass individual inspections, but us and what we know is believed and people are less naive about smc tactics and habits. Imagine if one of us was involved with an inspection. That would be like their worst nightmare...
So many things are possible.
Take care good citizens of the forum. Respect to all. Ifellaway

Hi Ifellaway,

I 100% agree that the most important thing is that individual people learn the truth and can make their own informed decision. I know how much this forum helped me, and, having read your own comments and those of others, there is no doubt that many many people have benefited from knowing they are not the ones at fault.

This forum and the Latigo site have now been around for quite a while (2 years?) and the leaders have had every change to turn round and say, "good grief, i really didn't realise - we must do something about this" but they haven't. I personally think that is the single most damning fact. Total arrogance. As you say, it ultimately simply cannot sustain itself.

I do think that charity status will also be a major concern to them however. Apart form anything else, they only pay 20% or their rates if they are a charity. If you combine the current financial mess they are in with large number of buildings they own and the fact that the removal of charitable status would multiply their rates bill by five, I think their charitable status will be at the forefront of their minds just now.

ThePetitor, I see what you mean about charity status. Associated financial assistance aside, being a charity is crucial. It is a good indicator of a group's honest intentions and their credibility. How would one explain to a potential new member that they used to be a charity, but then, for some complicated reason, decided to not be a charity any more?
Probably they could blame it on a small band of bitter people, who had nothing better to do than sit on t'internet and chip away at smc, sniping from behind fake names. But then, I suppose, they'd have to add that it is "frowned upon" if you go and look for yourself.
Either way, charity status is also useful as a shield that dissuades awkward questions. Well no one wants to be the one that rubbishes a charitable foundation. But times and attitudes are changing. Awkwardness is acceptable to achieve today's required standard of transparency.
Despite everything revealed here, no answers. Not exactly progressive or charitable, just completely and noticeably removed from the situation.
Perpetually in denial by remaining silent...which I'll continue to point out.
In the absence of any feedback from smc, I'd venture to say charity status is then the pivot that they balance on. If that ended, I'd further suggest that they will not be able to exist in any real sense.
But I could be wrong. Maybe a raft of changes that benefit communities are already in play...I just can't seem to find the evidence.
So, yes, upon rethinking it, the charity regulators will be always the primary concern. But life can be tough though. You know, you get over one hurdle and there's another one straight away. It often seems to work like that for me anyway.
Anyway, I really did have nothing better to do than post. I feel a little excess energy, thought I'd just say that I'm quite happy to read recent posts and I hope some comfort can be derived from the facts thusfar. Efforts of good people are having an effect. It's not pride I want to encourage, but some here should feel bhoyant that we haven't ignored the problem. Persistance has raised the sheer amount of information on display. And me, well I'm not even firing on all cylinders, yet! Victims of smc: I salute you and support you. If we can't ever get justice for you, that is sad indeed. If we can prevent further damage I know this will comfort you somehow.
Thanks all, regards and happy days, Ifellaway

Well it certainly sems that things have picked up speed since I was last on this site.

One thing that comes to mind when reading about the investigation by the OSCR into Struthers, is the recent avalanche of celebrities that have been linked to child sex abuse allegations. Since September of 2012, after the allegations were made regarding Jimmy Savile, it seems like every other week we are hearing of some celebrity or other who is being questioned or charged by the police over the sexual abuse of children. It makes one wonder what else will come to light in the coming months or even years. Now obviously I am not in possesion of any of the facts, other than what is reported on the news, but if there is guilt involved (and in the case of Stuart Hall, guilt admitted) it must be refreshing for the victims to finally have a voice and have someone in authority sit up and take notice.

Please don't get me wrong. I am in no way suggesting that anyone in Struthers leadership is, or has ever been, involved in the sexual abuse of children. However, it seems pretty clear from testimonies on this forum and that which I have seen with my own eyes, that children, and young adults have been emotionally, mentally and spiritually abused at the hands of Struthers leaders. In addition, many adults, some of whom were vulnerable, have also been at the receiving end of such abuse.

Now it seems, that some of the abusers are being brought to task. One thing that struck me when I suffered at the hands of SMC leaders was my powerlessness to do anything about it. No one who could do anything about it would. In fact it was the leaders who were supposed to be there to protect the flock, that were doing the harming. And what could you do? My response from Diana Rutherforsd just about summed this up. "If you don't like it you can go back to Coventry" she suggested. Yeah that was about it. If you don't like they way we treat you with utter contempt, you can crawl away into a little dark corner (actually Coventry is not that bad) while we tell everyone lies about how you were demon possesed and not ready to be obedient to Christ. That you wanted to continue in the deepest vilest sins that you were accused of, by the SMC leacdership. What's more, we will tell your friends and family, even your own children, that you are the scum of the earth and forbid them to have anything to do with you.

For years people have asked questions, asked why they were treated so unfairly, written posts and articles on this site, the Latigo site and others and have consistently got no answer. So Diana Rutherford is now saying that she feels it is a waste of time and that, just as Jesus was silent before his accusers, so she should remain silent in front of hers. Just one small problem here. the accusers of Jesus were FALSE. Nothing they said added up. One would give a testimony and the next man would come and completely contradict what the first man said and so on. Not reallty the case here is it? I see an extremely consistent stream of similar experiences and hurts from over 40 people, most of whom have never met, nor even know whom the other people on the forum are.

So I welcome the questioning from people who can't just be told "so what if you don't like how we do things. There is nothing you can do to change it. We are untouchable to you mere mortals" Ok maybe the OSCR can't shut down Struthers, but they can make a difference. They can call people to account and they can, if they deem it appropriate, remove charitable status.

I seem to remember that during the last sermon made available online by SMC, Grace Gault made a big deal about being a charity. Her defence of the accusation about Struthers Memorial Church being an abusive church, or a 'cult' as she put it was that "a cult is closed and secretive. We are not secretive, we are a charity." She went on to say about how, as a charity, they had checks and audits etc and their continued status as such was proof they were not a 'cult.' I actually disagree with the logic that being awarded a charitable staus, is proof alone that everythingnis being done is proper and above board. I'm sure we can all thing of cases where abuse, neglect, improper use of finances etc has gone on within a registered charity. However I would like to ask Mrs Gault, if she will change her stance on what she has said in defence of Struthers if the charitable staus is removed?

Finally, I would like to state for the record to anyone who is reading this, that I am willing to stand up and be counted and to give testimony in public of my experiences and f the things I have witnessed in my short time at Struthers Memorial Church. I would be willing to give testimony n a court of law if need be, about how I saw the young girl who was grabbed by her arm and physically dragged from a meeting by Diana Rutherford. I can be contacted via my private message box if anyone would like to like to speak to me any further on this or any other matter. I am just off to read the OSCR site.

God bless

Hi folks

I'm with you Covlass, I'll be on the stand right beside you!!

I do wonder just how much SMC leaders will try to cover-up and, like you guys, I get the feeling that they'll be putting L'Oreal out of business buying up all the 'smear resistant foundation' they can find! And they will need TONNES of the stuff!!

I suppose when you have spent as long as those guys have believing that you are something more special than everyone else, narcissism tends to take over and, let's face it, there's no cure for narcissism (not yet anyway). After all, if you believe you are Holy, anointed and wonderful - why would you want to change and become just an ordinary human being again?

I do hope that OSCR will see through the veils though and be able to come to the correct decisions during their investigation - regardless of how many lies and cover-ups they meet with from SMC leaders.

Incidentally, today's local paper carries a 'heart-warming' article on fund-raising being done by pupils of Cedars to fund their trip to Rwanda with their I-pad gifts. They seem to have done very well in that respect, and I guess it will earn them some Brownie Points but will it be enough to keep their 'charitable' status?

We wait with baited breath!!

As always biiiiiiiig love and huge huggggggggs to all!

God Bless xxx

I don't want to suggest the unthinkable either, CovLass. But the insular culture of smc is exactly what creates ideal backdrop for the protection of offenders, the ilk of predatory Jimmy Savile types.
I wonder if a young girl being questioned by unqualified people regarding her sexual "sin" would be qualified as child abuse with the emphasis on the sexual area. I know I have had to ask gravely serious questions regarding various sexual issues. There is a correct and legal way to do this. Which is why I am, in such situations, strictly adhering to how I've been taught. Also, there has to be protocols for this type of talk, similarly trained officials, police sometimes, etc. If it is done any other way, it is illegal due to the harm that can be done, even with the best of intentions.
Just saying...
And thanks, Cbarb, for providing some "evidence" of the charitable efforts pupils at Cedars. I sure don't want to disrespect the efforts of the good pupils there. Even though the idea may have come from the top, well done kids!
But I'm sure even the non-chess-playing charity inspectors know that the pawns' activity does not reveal the the whole strategy. And the fact that smc have a strategy against us, is good!!
Changes and apologies would be better though...
Love, honour and kind respect to all, Ifellaway

Quote
ThePetitor

Like others, I welcome the current review, but I think OSCR will have their work cut out on this one. Let’s say for example that they recommend that Struthers should look into a particular complaint. I can see them setting up a panel to do that and interviewing people. Let’s say for example the complaint is against Diana and there are two witnesses X and Y. They set up a panel of Grace Gault and Jennifer Jack and they listen to the complaint and the evidence. They then listen to Daina’s evidence, which is that God told her to do this. Ah, the panel decides, we know there is evidence from these misguided humans X and Y, but we have evidence form God Himself – how can we argue with that? The complaint is not upheld.

So, while I welcome the review, I am not yet convinced that it will have any real impact. There is a real danger that Struthers simply go through the motions and set up all of the processes and procedures, but the underlying decision-making is still the same.

Hi The Petitor

I get the the point you are making; yet I think there is still substantial reason to be very, very hopeful something major is happening here.

For about 55 of the last 60 years (as recently celebrated) the Struthers organisation has been effectively under no external accountability whatsoever. When it became a charitable company in 2007 (a change that possibly seemed a better idea at the time than it does now) it signed up to a massive raft of requirements and laws designed to ensure opennesss, transparency, accountability, trustee expertise and above all that their operating as a charity led directly to clear and provable benefit to the public.

OSCR have been established to make that happen across the Scottish charity sector and in my view are doing a seriously impressive job of ensuring laws and guidelines are complied with. A lot of detailed work is being done and OSCR are rightly taking on and challenging the parts of the sector which have been abusing their status.

So I don't think that Struthers will be allowed to agree with OSCR they will investigate complaints, but then get off with dismissing them because “God told them to”. The guidelines make it clear that such an approach will not place Struthers in a position of compliance with charity requirements.

So we shall see what happens but I believe having read the guidelines, that the very least they will now be required to do is set up a fair and transparent complaints procedure. They have already had to do this for the school part of their charity because they know no one would pay them any fees if they didn't have one.

So if that is put in place then I can only envisage 2 possible outcomes – both very positive:

1 They set up a decent and proper complains procedure as agreed with OSCR. And it will be in their interests to resolve complaints very quickly and to the complete satisfaction of those feeling aggrieved. If they don't then these complaints can still be taken to OSCR for adjudication – threatening their charity status on an ongoing basis.

or

2 They run a complaints procedure but in the way you describe above.

Personally I would be fine with that too - at last there would be documented honesty.

I say that because historically they take people who they are supposed to be leading to God and tell them God is unhappy with their lives (usually in vague and unclear ways) then tell them they are banned from attending public meetings in Struthers or are no longer someone the pastor will even speak to. Doing that in a quiet room face to face with a hurting and devastated person is one thing. Having to say that in a formal written form “we have considered your complaint and God has told us not to speak to you” will be documentary proof that these people are off the scale bizzare and beyond all sanity and reason. That would not be seen as apostolic church government. It would be seen as the actions and words of nutters.

Add the fact that these documents, as public pronouncements of the charity's policy, will – whether they like it or not - be shared on this forum, in other public places or passed to the press. That will ensure that any reply to a complaint of that type from Struthers would be rightly held up to mockery and ridicule from any and all other secular and Christian organisations, and likely bring despair to most of their own members. And the 6 directors who support and enable this approach will not after that be sitting happily with their christian brothers and sisters in inter-church groups pretending they are sane and mainstream. That party will be over. And the likelihood of anyone subsequently joining a Struthers church will have been reduced by roughly 99%.


If they want to be a private club with secret rules whose leaders are above answering questions that avenue is open to them. However as it currently stands the 6 Struthers charity directors have voluntarily placed the church under the authority of OSCR to gain huge financial advantages. Those advantages come with responsibilities to the public and for the first time ever people they have to answer to.

We have been asking for Struthers to resolve the issues raised on this forum for two and a half years. They have not yet made any attempt to do so. It may be that they should consider what they can and should now do before others take those decisions for them.

Hi folks

I tend to agree with you ChesterK55, up until this point in time SMC have only had to supply evidence to placate the charities commission but this time they are going to be thoroughly investigated and outside noses will be poked deeper into SMC affairs than ever before.

Sure they may fluff over as much as they can but they will still be required to produce solid evidence that they are adhering to OSCR rules and regulations and that the complaints registered here are dealt with in a proper and fair manner.

Somehow I can't honestly see the holy and anointed climbing down from their high places to pay attention to mere mortals who are just looking for answers and recognition of their pain. So I wonder just how they will deal with this investigation.

Personally I believe that if they did set up a complaints panel, the panel would still be so condescending to the complainant that any apologies or explanations would probably just be tongue-in-cheek anyway. However, the fact that they would have to put decisions in writing will, as ChesterK55 points out, make their narcissism and unreasonable practices very transparent for the first time ever, in their history to date. And, of course, total disbelief and ridicule would follow any such written document and this could only serve to harm the organisation's attempts to recruit new members.

So, by my reckoning, this is all most welcome because it will mean that they can no longer say "Ignore these people, they just don't understand what we're doing here!" That old chestnut just wouldn't wash any more because they would HAVE to set out their intentions and reasons for decisions in black and white so that us mere mortals WOULD understand what they're doing. And, since their twisted beliefs are not founded in Christianity or the Bible, they would have an extremely hard job in convincing people that their actions and words are correct in the eyes of God as well as in the eyes of current charity legislation.

So, while I share your misgivings, ThePetitor, I do believe that ChesterK55 is right in saying that SMC leaders will no longer be able to hide behind their perceived Holy and anointed status to remain mute on complaints from members and former members and that can only be a good thing. Sure they'll probably try to avoid as much transparency as they can but they will have to get REAL to a much greater extent than before and that can only serve to either harm the organisation - by reducing membership - or completely change their stance on what questions and complaints are WORTH their time and efforts to resolve.

I do think we are going to see some real changes in the coming months and it makes me proud to be a contributor to that most welcome, and highly overdue, change to an organisation which, so far, has been accountable to no one for their treatment of members and former members.

The times, they are a-changing - to coin a well-known phrase. I say "Bring it on- Let the light of transparency and accountability shine where it never has before!"

So, SMC leaders, get on your sunglasses coz the spotlight is on YOU - as Eamon Holmes says "This is your LIFE...!" Come on down and face the music!

As always
Biiiiiiiiig love and huge huggggggggggs to all
God Bless xxxx

PS. Sorry, I think it might be Eamon Andrews I meant above?? Can't really remember which one of them hosted 'This is your life' :-)
xxxx