kelvin:

No.

That post was deleted because it violated the rules.

Personal attacks of the members of this message board is not allowed. You agreed to those rules when you signed up to post here.

BTW -- Resorting to such personal attacks typically signifies that you feel that you have lost the argument.

You never answered my question about what if anything you think that the group has done wrong?

Clive

I think you are making a mistake in your interpretation of what is happening at the moment on the forum. The moderator is capable of identifying and warning us about flaming and inappropriately personal attacks in posts. He seems to have taken the view that only Kelvin has been in breach of the rules. Likewise Kelvin has not complained about being "set upon by a pack" of anything - he has raised points and engaged in a discussion with people who have wanted to post in reaction to his posts. That there have been a lot of replies is entirely right since anyone who wants to post within the rules is entitled to make their points.

So what is it that you are objecting to? Who and what posts are you even talking about?

Speaking for myself I think cbarb was spot on when she said the recent discussions have been very good in terms of moving the argument and the discussion forward. If people want that to continue then I think they should all feel free to make any and all points they may wish to without being accused of behaving like a pack of wolves. That I think is a ludicrous interpretation of the contributions from people who are perfectly entitled within the forum rules to say what they please in the discussions around what Kelvin has raised.

The idea that our collective response to pro Struthers posts is keeping such posters away is pure speculation on your part. But even if it was correct it would only mean there is noone in Struthers capable of addressing and replying to the serious issues we have raised in case we try and question them further on those replies. That would not be then a sign of a strong church that has worked out its ideas and can defend them in public.


And some points re your earlier accusation of our replies to Kelvin being the kind of "flaming" you are familiar with from your atheist discussion forums.

Your views on the Latigo accounts articles you have shared here before. If you do indeed find them so pointless perhaps for consistency you should not then extensively quote in your posts facts which you only know because they first became public knowledge via those same articles.

I would also ask you - like I recently asked Kelvin - not to make unhelpful condescending generalisations. Please indicate which posts and from who do you regard as bring this forum into flaming. As far as I can see there is nothing here that would even resemble a glimmer of the degree of flaming on most atheist "discussion" forums or even some of the other forums on this website. Expressing emotional pain and strongly disagreeing are not flaming.

Finally please could you explain the start of your recent post:
"Can I just add some perceptions as "the only atheist in the village"
Are you implying that your atheism gives you some kind of special additional insight the rest of us do not have? If so I respectfully disagree with that notion. My view is that your coming from that position, and your limited second hand experience of Struthers, inevitably gives you less insight than people who have a Christian perspective and an understanding that the spiritual issues those in Struthers had to confront are real. That would be my view. I completely respect your right to be part of the discussion.

It strikes me that if I went onto one of your atheist forums and started a post with:
"Can I just add some perceptions as the only Christian in the village"
that might not be greeted with the tolerance and politeness extended to you by those on this forum. From what I have seen I would expect nothing but the flaming, obscenity and hatred typically heaped on Christians in that unbalanced and biased context. I suspect the atheists "flaming" would reach heights never seen in the perfectly appropriate, lucid and heartfelt replies here to Kelvin.

Chester

If rrmoderator is going to take Kelvin to task for what he/she perceives as personal attacks it might be helpful if he did so evenly.

My perception has been that which I have already posted. You can take issue with how I word those perceptions. But if those are perceptions I have, one shouldn't be surprised if others have them too.

As to "Finally please could you explain the start of your recent post: Can I just add some perceptions as "the only atheist in the village - Are you implying that your atheism gives you some kind of special additional insight the rest of us do not have?"

This is a mischaracterisation of something that I wrote basically for a bit of levity. Sounds a wee bit hyper-sensitive if you ask me. I merely referred to a particular ( but currently very controversial ) incident in atheist forums as an example of how posters can over-react. It was a comedy show reference, to add lightness before mentioning the atheist forum incident i discussed. No more. No less. I certainly wasn't suggesting any kind of superiority/inferiority/special pleading etc etc . But hey - maybe you just object to the fact that not everyone here sings from the same hymn sheet.

As for ["It strikes me that if I went onto one of your atheist forums and started a post with: "Can I just add some perceptions as the only Christian in the village"
that might not be greeted with the tolerance and politeness extended to you by those on this forum. " ]

Again - this just sounds to me like youre assuming that this thread has some special privileged status and "belongs" to believers and christians. RRModerator has several times implied this is not true. The fact that so many here ARE believers of some sort is simply an inevitalble outcome of the fact that the forum is about abusive churches, their leaders and memberships.

But I do agree with you - the language on some of the atheist forums ( and lets be fair - many other forums that deal with topics under anonymity - for example political ones, or the comments areas on newspapers ) is for sure, more incendiary than here.

Again - I would ask you please to show a little "Principle Of Charity" to what I write and to others - instead of reading far more into my post than was intended.

Next thing - i'll probably be accused of is being some kind of "apologist" for Kelvin !

Oh and as for hatred. You clearly have no idea of the vitriol and hatred that gets sent by various mediums to atheists - particularly well known ones by people who simply don't want to hear criticism of their deeply held beliefs being voiced in public. Nor the disdain public or private - made clearly felt in the USA towards the atheist minority over there. Where atheists ( unlike here ) are by many popular surveys - considered almost evil - and by extension - unfit for government. There are even laws in some states forbidding an atheist from holding office.

But please dont turn this into an off-topic atheist bash.

Whereas I DO think that healthy, reason-based scepticism does shine a very important light on how the cult thing works, and of course SMC, I'm not here to promote atheism.
Science based scepticism of bogus claims to spiritual authority and powers ? Yes. Sure. its all part of questioning the SMC emperors lack of clothing.

Scepticism keeps asking questions where others might merely be willing to go with the "received" answers. And as Latigo mentions many times- asking unanswered questions is what a lot of the issues here are about.

In fact I think its very important for the SMC leaders and its flock NOT to get the false idea that the only people who left SMC and had issues with it - are merely those who are to differing degrees of "drifting away" from
the typical "orthodox" evangelical pentecostalism. Some may have. But seems to me plenty of those who left and post here have remained very strong indeed in their faith, and in no way turned away from pentecostalism.
In a nutshell - It isnt about that.

Its about harm. Pure and simple.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2012 08:35PM by Clive.

Hi guys

I think some hackles have been drawn up and it might be worth just taking a deep breath and having a cup of tea :-)

Everyone who posts here is entitled to an opinion but not everyone holds the same opinions and that's a good thing because it keeps our feet on the ground and hopefully makes the debate more balanced.

It's difficult to be objective through pain and hurt and we support and sympathise with each other to try and bring some closure to the pain.

Sometimes I feel less effective because, although I know the pain and the hurt which has been caused to many hundreds of people; I myself left the church voluntarily because I could no longer attend an organisation which told me I should ostracise my oldest friend because she was 'demon-possessed' any other hurt I had pales into insignificance against many of the testimonies on this site but I nevertheless support and empathise with their pain and confusion because I saw the same things happening to members over and over again during my 18 years in the church (I would've left when I was 16 but my Dad wouldn't let me although he allowed me to miss the Greenock meetings and just attend the Port Glasgow ones; where questioning the pastor was positively encouraged and no-one spoke of demon-possession). When I first found this site I couldn't believe that 30 years down the line the same stuff was still happening and I felt compelled to give my support in the best way I can.

On this very public forum we have asked time and time again for some input from 'people in the know' in SMC but have heard very little back. I think maybe one other poster, some time ago, before Kelvin and I do think that there have been some unfair comments on both sides.

I can probably be a little more objective because, although the church WAS my life and I totally lost my way when I left, I have had many years to find my way back to a spiritual place and I'm at peace with God and in love with the whole planet (a totally different place than I had EVER been before).

It is right to be able to question leadership and, as Kelvin says, it would be better face-to-face but unfortunately no-one, that I know of anyway, has been able to get that all important audience with leadership (in spite of repeatedly asking for it) in order to pose their questions and receive proper reasoned responses to those questions. Indeed some people have even written letters to their pastors on more than one occasion and received no replies and that's why this forum took-off the way it has because people, with very real grievances to air, finally found a platform on which to share their experiences and support one another.

In all fairness, Kelvin has already pointed out that he/she is not an SMCer and could probably be viewed as 'being in the cheap seats (rattle your jewellry)' and probably isn't the person to be bombarding with all the questions we have, since he really doesn't have the answers. We can all only speak from our own experiences and accept that some people have not had these experiences and therefore cannot understand or help with some of the deeper issues raised on the forum.

Sometimes anger and pain and hurt can cloud our judgement and, strangely enough, I find myself agreeing to some extent with our 'resident aetheist in the village' because I understood the intended joke. However, I see wounds opening fast here and I think this is why others missed that light-heartedness which was unfortunate. I don't think Clive was being insensitive I just think he missed the sense of what's been happening over the past few posts as pain, hurt and anger was being relived and revisited so it probably wasn't the right time for jokes.

Yes, we want to enter into intelligent debate with SMC but, let's face it, the ONLY people who can give us proper answers and help to close the wounds are the leaders of the church and not the members of the congregation - most of whom will have been told either nothing at all about the people who have left or a load of junk about the people who left. There will be no help or closure from press-ganging the first SMC poster that has the courage to come and speak on the forum and, to be perfectly honest, like us these people are entitled to their opinions but let's not make it a war.

We can't conduct a balanced and reasoned debate by picking apart every sentence a poster writes and shooting them down in flames (that applies on both sides) and if SMCers are afraid of the responses they get they will not be inclined to post at all and how will that help anyone?

My advice, as an author, would be: if you logon and read a post that offends and angers you, write your reply in Word or in a notebook first but don't post while you remain angry or hurt because words just don't come out right when you're in that frame of mind. Have a strong cup of sweet tea and relax for an hour or two, you might even want to pray first for some peace before you make your final post. Proof-read your post at least three times before you log back onto the forum and paste it or write it here. During the second proof-reading, pretend you are the poster to whom you are replying and ask yourself 'How does this make me feel?' and amend the post as necessary. During the third proof-reading look for inconsistencies and words of emotion and try to cut the post as clinically as you can to a point where you feel you are saying what you want to say without being overly judgemental or emotional, if possible.

It's easy to let hurt and anger get in the way of what you really want to say (I'm guilty of that myself) and one angry word leads to another and another and before you know it, it's all-out war but targeted at the wrong people and everybody comes away with a nasty taste in their mouths and nothing really resolved.

If someone has very strong beliefs it is sometimes almost impossible to make them change their minds. We know this all too well because we were all indoctrinated by SMC and liberally spouted our beliefs to those around us, but when your belief system is shattered it's the hardest thing in the world to pick the pieces up and start from scratch again.

It's only natural to want to point the finger when you're motivated by hurt and there is so much pain and grief with us ex-SMCers but not everyone understands that unless they have been in the church for a long time, as we all were. It wasn't just a break-down of a belief system but a break-down of everything we once held so dear in our lives and sometimes an insensitive remark can re-inflame wounds we've been trying to heal for many years.

Let's be stronger than that guys, take a deep breath and think objectively about what you want to reply. It's no use beating the donkey that isn't tied to the cart, if you get my meaning. And I don't think the debate or the healing process can progress very far if we keep criticising every word.

I know we've probably posted this before but I felt compelled to post it again, for clarification for Kelvin since he/she questions whether or not SMC is cultish or a controlling group. Here's what RickRoss says on this site:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.


Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.


Ten signs of a safe group/leader.

A safe group/leader will answer your questions without becoming judgmental and punitive.

A safe group/leader will disclose information such as finances and often offer an independently audited financial statement regarding budget and expenses. Safe groups and leaders will tell you more than you want to know.

A safe group/leader is often democratic, sharing decision making and encouraging accountability and oversight.

A safe group/leader may have disgruntled former followers, but will not vilify, excommunicate and forbid others from associating with them.

A safe group/leader will not have a paper trail of overwhelmingly negative records, books, articles and statements about them.

A safe group/leader will encourage family communication, community interaction and existing friendships and not feel threatened.

A safe group/leader will recognize reasonable boundaries and limitations when dealing with others.

A safe group/leader will encourage critical thinking, individual autonomy and feelings of self-esteem.

A safe group/leader will admit failings and mistakes and accept constructive criticism and advice.

A safe group/leader will not be the only source of knowledge and learning excluding everyone else, but value dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.


No prizes for pointing out in which of these groups SMC leaders belong.

Kelvin, you may not have enough experience of SMC and its leadership to know which of these groups they fall into but, in case you're wondering, it most emphatically and definitely is the FIRST group (although they may not have all the characteristics listed, they certainly show the majority of them and few, if any of the characteristics of the third group).

Regardless of the accounts, or any other sub-issue, the major issue remains that SMC leaders portray, if not cultish, certianily unsafe behaviour, in which case the organisation should be avoided completely. So if you are thinking of spending more time there my friend, my very sincere advice is DON'T. Find yourself an organisation or church in which the leaders very definitely fall into the third category above.

Also, perhaps if you word your last post differently I will get a chance to answer your questions or comments. I'll look forward to it.

Much love and the hugest hugggggs EVER to all
God bless xxxx

I think you summarise things very well indeed cbarb.

And on a lighter note - now I know you are an author - it kind of explains the size of your voluminous posts ;) . I rather like the look of my writing too !

But back to the matter at hand. Speaking to someone I know from within the SMC, and showing that person in detail some of the testimonies here, PLUS illustrating how this person has not exactly been the recipient of what would be considered typical pastoral care, I did get feedback suggesting that on at least some of the matters here, the person was aware of and acknowledged some failings - or "things that could be improved".

But all the same - nothing sufficient to cause the person to change churches.

And I have received feedback elsewhere indicating that there ARE indeed quite a few from within SMC that might agree with some of the criticisms but would not want to post anything here because it could be taken as supporting some of the more wild, speculative, or just rashly and wrongly worded assertions here. This appears to have split opinion among SMC members as to whether to have anything to do with the forum at all.

To that end, cbarbs suggestions have to be worth taking on imo.

In particular, I hope others can back me up when I make it clear - that as far as I can tell, I myself, and NO-ONE here is alleging - or indeed has alleged ANY form of child-abuse in SMC of the kind associated for example - with the Catholic church.

Maybe I and others have used the example of the Catholic church when needing to illustrate unwillingness to respond to criticism etc. but emphatically no more than that. And its probably better to stay away from using such examples.

I apologise to SMC members and leaders if anything I wrote, has given a misleading perception of what I was trying to say in connection with the above.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2012 09:23PM by Clive.

Hi guys

Thanks Clive, yes you got me on that one :-). When the jug is full I just have to keep pouring till it's empty! The Curse of the Wordsmith - could be a new horror movie?

On the issue of 'Child abuse' hopefully we're not alluding to sexual abuse here because I firmly believe that certainly DOES NOT go on in SMC. However, it could be argued that there are some misgivings about MENTAL and SPIRITUAL abuse of the members, including those under the age of 16.

I've been harsh at times and probably a bit too emotional myself so I want to make my stance a bit clearer, if I can.

Miss Taylor, in her day was good at spouting people's 'sins' from the platform. It could be dressed up as a general sermon but worded in such a way as to make sure there was no doubt about the individual being castigagted from the platform and, to me anyway, that's completely wrong.

Unfortunately DR, who believes she has Miss T's 'mantle' is obviously practicing the same type of thing which causes hurt, pain and humiliation to those it is directed at and that's not Biblical. She may not believe this is wrong but I believe it most emphatically is and does not show the depth of pastoral care needed by a church leader.

It probably isn't really her fault but the fault of those who taught her to be that way. I can't speak about the other pastors because no-one has mentioned whether or not they do the same thing on their own platforms although I would hope that they don't.

People's problems should be dealt with privately between the pastor and individual involved and should not become the subject of sermons from the public platform. It is this kind of treatment which breeds FEAR in the congregation and shows a need to CONTROL the members by underhand and unscrupulous means.

On the subject of CONTROL, pastors should be able to give ADVICE (if asked for it) but they should not be imposing their own will on the individual and should not ban or ostracise people for NOT taking their advice. At the end of the day what happens in an individual's life is between them and God and no one else and they should not be made to feel that they are somehow defficient, as Christians, because they decide not to take the advice of their pastor.

On the subject of prophesies, it is hard to believe any of them when they are twisted with human thoughts. Take the 'Revival prophesy' from Miss T. back in the day: this was the prophesy which began the 'insular' notion that God would start the Revival in SMC and there was no need to be going anywhere else for spiritual food becasue it would all be provided from within SMC walls. That was about 40 odd years ago and SMC are still waiting for the revival to happen.

What they don't seem to realise or have acknowledged is that the revival has been sweeping the world during those 40 odd years and passing SMC by because they are still sitting with their heads in the sand and waiting for it to happen to them.

It's very sad because it keeps them insular and single-minded while everyone else is experiencing the joy of God moving across the rest of the world.

Like Rensil, I believe in the gifts of the holy spirit and have been baptised in the spirit myself. However, the gifts of the spirit are many and not just speaking in tongues. When God blesses you in this way, He expects you to go out and spread His light, love, joy and spiritual gifts to those in need of succour and support and, by doing so, thus increase our own spiritual gifts.

The sad part is that SMC want to keep their gifts within the church walls and, while I agree that you can get addicted to the wonderful feeling of the holy spirit on you, this is only the tip of the iceberg. God has so much more to give through His Holy Spirit than just great singing and praying and he wants this for SMC just as much as he wants it for the rest of the world.

The idea that people have problems because they are somehow inefficient spiritually is wrong. God sends us trials and problems to allow us to work at the solutions, with His help, and this makes us stronger in Him and increases our spiritual gifts. It's like making an investment, you have to put something IN to get something out. You only have to read the book of JOB to understand that God is continually teaching us about the way we should live and how we should apply His gifts to the benefit of OTHERS and He will look after our own personal needs.

People should WELCOME the trials and tribulations God sends them (no matter how hard they seem) because each one is a new opportunity for spiritual advancement and to become stronger in the Lord. They do NOT indicate that the individual is somehow spiritually defficient, far from it!

I personally have gone through many trials and tribulations in my life but not once has God EVER let me down and each time there was a valuable lesson for me to learn. Sometimes it seems like there is no light at the end of the tunnel and just when things get so bad you feel like giving up (like Job) God ALWAYS comes through with another opportunity to serve him and receive His wonderful gifts. Like so many others, I have (in the past) believed I was being punished for not going to church or for being back-slidden etc. until I had an epiphany of my own and suddenly I saw clearly that troubles (even sickness) are to be embraced because they are actually OPPORTUNITIES to shine with God's Glory. God actually TELLS us this in the Bible, if we allow Him to take over and guide us He will NEVER let us down. It's when we try to deal with problems ourselves that things seem to go horribly wrong but if we let Him take over the steering wheel He will drive us to the destination He wants for us.

God gives us His gifts so that we can share these gifts with those who need help and support (regardless of what church they go to or what beliefs they hold or even, I believe, their sexuality. Yes folks, I believe that God loves gay people just as much as straight people, he might not like what they do but I don't believe he loves them any less than he loves anyone else). Getting out and spreading God's Light and Love is the ONLY way to increase ourselves spiritually. This is what SMC are defficient in teaching and are thus keeping the congregation from doing the real work which God wants for them.

In closing, I eat some humble pie and apologise profusely for any hurt or pain my own words have caused to anyone posting on or reading the forum. In particular, I apologise to DR for my previous harsh words, my personal feelings were clouding my judgement, sorry. I'm now taking my own advice and trying to be more objective about what I write in the future.

As always

Biiiig love and huge hugggggs to all
God Bless xxxx

Dear all,

I am happy to confirm that I have no reason to suspect people in SMC of any sexual abuse - any reference to abuse is much more general - abuse of power and "spiritual abuse" which I could not define with any great authority, but is something to do with using a position of perceived spiritual power and authority to act in ways that would not be acceptable if that perceived power was not present.

Hi guys

Just to get back to the whole point of this forum and maybe even get some answers from someone 'in the know'. These are the very succinct points which Chesterk55 summarised beautifully and are the burning questions which we all have regarding SMC and the teachings and actions of the pastors there:

Chesterk55:

Have exorcisms on children ever been performed in Struthers churches or conferences?
Please note there is a big difference between “that would never happen now” and “it has never happened”. It has. This issue is not in dispute. Whether your friend will talk about it, admit it is true and defend it is the issue. If your friend gave money to the church they funded this. Whether they are proud of that and tell their non Struthers friends about it is another matter.

Were charitable donations used to buy stocks and shares and a huge but never disclosed amount of money was lost by the undemocratic leadership of Struthers in the 1980s. Then ask who was responsible for finance at the time?

Have people in the church, and people who have left, ever been publicly criticised and berated during sermons from the pulpit?

Have people who have disagreed in some way with the leaders ever been publicly named and berated in sermons from the pulpit?

Have young people in some branches had their clothing or appearance publicly criticized by church leaders in front of their peers?

Have any Struthers church leaders told people that it is a sin to dye their hair and if they do it will result in no Christian service opportunities ever being granted to them?

Have the leaders ever placed their own family members in positions of influence, leadership and in some cases salaried employment?

Have people ever been encouraged not to meet with other Christians from other churches as this would be spiritually damaging to them?

Have adults and children been banned by the leadership from attending public meetings run by Struthers with no opportunity for appeal or written explanation? Is this acceptable under charity law?

Have any of the Struthers directors refused to answer correspondence from former members asking about their treatment by the church ?

Have any Struthers leaders ever advised a woman to leave her husband because he was not obeying the leader of the church? Or for any reason not connected with personal safety from domestic violence?

Have Struthers leaders ever instructed people who they can and cannot talk to within their congregations, and who they are allowed to be friends with, and branded them as rebellious to God and threatened them with expulsion if they did not agree to this?

Have Struthers leaders ever told someone they are not to get married, or not to marry or date a particular person? Do some of the leaders see that as their God given right?

Let's see if we can't now maybe get some proper and objective answers to these very pertinent questions.

As always Biiiiig love and huge hugggggs to all
God bless xxx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2012 05:17AM by cbarb.

I would like to endorse Chesterk55's post of 10th December 2012, because I endorse what he/she has written and agree with what he/she says. I did not take kindly to the idea that I am one of a "pack of wolves" who sets upon someone who presents pro-Struthers views on this Forum. Every one of the replies to Kelvin has been expressed in as gentle a way as it possibly can be, when one is dealing with the hurts and pains of people who have suffered spiritual abuse in SMC. If someone has never really been a part of SMC nor attended it very much, they cannot possibly understand completely what goes on and how the leaders behave and the effect of their manipulation on ordinary people. We who have been in SMC, are not going to just sit quietly and take it, when we hear pro-SMC views coupled with criticisms of what we've posted on this Forum. We have a right to speak up. We were silenced so often and for so long whilst in SMC and now we have a voice. So we will speak and defend our right to post what we want to.

This Forum has helped so many people; people like Lintar123, who, with her husband, has suffered alone for years, thinking she was the only one to be abused and then later bad-mouthed by SMC leaders. Because of this Forum, she now has hope and knows her life can be restored and that healing of the past can now start to happen. This Forum has helped people to take courage and leave SMC. It has helped many who left in previous years and still had a burden of guilt upon them. I'm sure there are many people reading this Forum thread secretly and that it is making them think and question things.

SMC leaders have instructed their flock not to read this Forum and they see it as loyalty to the Church, if members refuse to read it. People may well be afraid to post on here but it isn't because they may get "attacked" on here. It's because they are afraid of the leadership and, when you are within SMC, this means they are afraid that God would be against them posting on here.