I tend to revert to "primitive man," the way some economists revert to a "prudent man," when thinking about these things. I just imagine some Neanderthal or CroMagnon looking up at the sky and pondering why things happen the way they do. We (mostly) don't seem to have advanced very far from these inauspicious beginnings, as far as I can determine. Most religions practiced currently seem worse than primitive to me in this regard, as they ascribe not only poorly understood or mysterious occurances but also those we do have some grasp of to the super-natural machinations of "knowable" dieties.

I see Landmark as emblematic of some very primitive, reactionary ideological response to a "victim"-type mentality, in which some men in extenuating circumstances who are fearful that they have very little real control over their own lives immaturely grasp at some omnipotent "superman" image of themselves in compensation for their very meager and impotent real powers. A "primitive man," faced with hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, and plagues of locusts might fantasize how he would manage things if he were in control or imagine that he has some recourse in a special relationship with super-natural powers which he can appease and direct. The Mormons were convinced that they had a special relationship with God when their prayers were answered by a huge migration of gulls that quickly devoured the "Mormon crickets" decimating their crops and threatening their survival.


Ultimately, Landmark, and Landmark-type belief systems are immature - silly and sophomoric, if you like. They pander to people's fantasies of control and power, success, wealth, fame, prestige, and the like, feeding them an exaggerated vision of their own ~potential,~ all within reach using magical ~technology~ rather than the usual combination of imagination, hard work, talent, persistance, and luck.


Ellen

Quote
Savernake

Quote
midonov123
If something goes wrong in your life, it's not always because of you. There are so many examples I could come up with, but the one I prefer is the book of Job which illustrates that Landmark's teaching goes against the Bible.

I'm not really that familiar with the Bible -- what happens in the book of Job?

Job was a rich and wealthy man but then he lost everything (wife, kids, properties, health, etc..). Job's friends keep telling him he lost everything because he must have done something wrong. Job defends himself and keep saying he always served God and that he didn't deserve such afflictions. A third wise man comes along and he also "coaches" Job that he did something wrong in his life and that he is solely responsible for what he got. According to everybody, Job is responsible for loosing everything. Job keeps saying he is not. Finaly, God speaks to Job. He says only Job spoke wisely about himself, and that Job is not responsible for what happened. It was God's will.

So, as you can see, the concept of blaming the victim is not new. And it's against the teaching of the Bible. So, who are you going to trust? The Forum leader or God himself?

YZFRI,

You can only know what you know, period! What you don't know, You freakin' don't know! If you are hypnotized and suggested-to, that you are a snake...you will only see your world at a 2 inch - level...& you will not resist (like some German folks did early on in Hitler days) because it is all that has been "ingrained" into you through the back door you left unlocked. I bet even as you read this you 1) totally discard the "INCOMING"
2) can't logically come to a conclusion about it
OR
3) have no clue..

IMO, It is one thing to desire a perfect world and a perfect "me" for all of us..since this is impossible (no one is perfect - that is totally subjective based on the viewer/listener etc... So how could ANYONE HAVE THE ANSWER to that since everyone else besides you are also human? Or is there $$$$$$$$$ at stake somewhere in the process?

Just thoughts for food?

PAX

Quote
YZFR1
Having attended no introduction to Landmark but having completed both the Forum and Advanced course i thought id comment.

I enjoyed the course, discovered some new tools that have allowed me to view thing differently and experienced a deeper level of understanding with my friends and colleagues and it was inspirational seeing a number of people re-connect with their families and friends.

Im a well educated person who holds a senior role in a global company and having attended many motivational/educational and business related course throughout my year's, i believe can evaluate this course with a non-bias opinion.

I found the course to be both challenging and inspiring, i felt this course allowed you to have a look at what you have created in your life, how you created it, and what you would like to create moving forward. How you translate this is totally up to the individual.

This course i feel isn't for people who may need "professional" help, or suffer form a mental condition and are seeking a course to "fix" their lives, my view is that this is designed for educated people with broad life experiences that are willing to look at their past, be open to evaluating it and able to look at their future.

Like any course some people have positives and negatives, but unless you actually complete the course you really cannot comment.

From my point of view i wasnt i forced to do anything, i always had the choice to say "no" and also had the opportunity to leave if i so desired (with my money refunded).

All i can say is personal experience accounts for my view and my view alone.

Ill leave you with a quote;

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

Friedrich Nietzsche


Kind Regards

Hi - I don't know if you are still reading/posting on this message board, but I have a few questions..

Since you've attended many motivational/educational and business related courses, did it bother you that a portion of your Landmark forum was spent teaching/coaching you how to handle criticism of Landmark? In what other motivational/educational and business related course is this done?

My other question is to ask how you became familiar with Landmark without attending an introduction. Were you sold on the idea from the first person who told you about it? Was it strongly suggested at your place of employment?

As for the statement about Landmark not being for people who may need professional help, besides totally agreeing with you, I find it ironic that those types of people seem to be the first that are approached by Landmark graduates, seemingly for their inability to say no - and their hope of belonging to/with something/someone.

It appears from the outside to be an insecure organization for insecure people who want to pretend they aren't.

I've read all the posts from people who say Landmark worked for them. They are all identical to the point of being scary. Don't you value your individuality and your ability to express yourself? The last place any secure person would want to go to is someplace that churns out clones, unless they've become convinced that IS their security.

YZFR1 was banned for rules infraction.

Quote
lanajae
I've read all the posts from people who say Landmark worked for them. They are all identical to the point of being scary. Don't you value your individuality and your ability to express yourself? The last place any secure person would want to go to is someplace that churns out clones, unless they've become convinced that IS their security.

Lanajae,

Landmark put a lot of emphasis on the concept of "authenticity". A blatant contradiction is that their "authenticity" is pursued by comforming to the ideology of the group, in total opposition with the concept of authenticity itself. The only thing they can achieve is to be authentic about their inauthenticity. This is probably only another trick to hook people because they cannot escape the contradiction.

Quote
midonov123
So, as you can see, the concept of blaming the victim is not new. And it's against the teaching of the Bible. So, who are you going to trust? The Forum leader or God himself?

Well, that does rather depend on the person being Christian, as to whether they consider that the Bible constitutes the word of God. There are a lot of other religions out there.

Still, I'll remember this in case it's applicable in future (ie if I meet someone who's sucked into Landmark who also believes in the Bible).

Quote
Savernake
Still, I'll remember this in case it's applicable in future (ie if I meet someone who's sucked into Landmark who also believes in the Bible).

That was the whole point about my argumentation. Use it as necessary. Still, I'd like to hear a Forum leader argue that Landmark has no religious implications. As you can see, Landmark's New Age ideology does have religious implications.

I just read all these complaints about Landmark and in most of them, there's the "I gave them my credit card number..." and it makes me wince. I've taken a lot of Landmark courses, including the Curriculum for Living (the Forum, the Advanced Course and the SELP); I've taken several seminars, the Introduction to Forum Leaders Program (that trains you to lead introductions) and coached the SELP and IFLP (helping participants master the course). I've led introductions to the Forum (those little seminars where your friends bring you on "graduation night") and assisted in the Forum, courses and the introductions. Through all that, I managed to maintain my individuality while VOLUNTARILY immersing myself in the Landmark technology. I think the key is probably realizing from the very beginning that Landmark is just a pile of tools that you can use to work on your life in a kind of mechanical way; it's not a religion or any sort of "belief system," it's not something that anyone should be able to force you to do. You just pick up a tool they show you, try it out, if it works you use it; if it doesn't work, you discard it and move on. As a program coach, I thought THIS distinction was one of the most important to emphasize to participants, since how YOU perceive the technology informs how you share it. If it occurs for you as a belief system, then when you share it with others, it comes off as proselytizing and as pressure. Landmark really doesn't want to pressure people into doing things, but I believe that sometimes the people who are part of it (like introduction leaders and program leaders) don't convey that very well or don't manage what is sometimes a very fine line between the Landmark distinction "enrollment" and what guests perceive as "pressure". Sometimes I felt bombarded by "pressure" to "share the Forum," or to "bring more guests." I also felt comfortable "being a no" for that sometimes, and I was able to stand there and say "no, I'm not committing to bringing guests. I might." It concerns me that there are people who would not feel comfortable declaring that, the same people who gave their credit card numbers when asked repeatedly to register. Landmark employees and volunteers are trained to respect outright "No", but are trained to use waffling as an opportunity, just like in sales. I realize that some people waffle because they don't like to tell people "no" or because they're afraid of appearing some way to others, or because they think it's rude to be blunt. I worry about those people and Landmark's effect on them. Usually the Forum starts with the leader asking if anyone was coerced to come, and if they were, inviting them to leave. Most people don't leave at this point, for me, it was curiosity that kept me. There's another opportunity to leave and get a complete refund, and most people don't take that either. I think anyone who stays after that who doesn't want to be there is probably enmired in some kind of exercise in anger that never gives them the opportunity to see anything presented as a choice of tools, and simply that. It becomes something much bigger, and that's unfortunate. It took me lots of courses to be able to use the tools effectively and easily in my life, and when I felt like I had enough tools and enough of being around Landmark I didn't take or coach any more courses. I think the great challenge is to be able to take the things you've learned and make them work in YOUR version of living, not in the Landmark community, which is pretty much living your life eternally in courses. I don't fault the people who live and breathe Landmark, it gives you a very well-supported life and kind of forces you to be in action all the time, to operate in the technology all the time. Most of them are pretty successful! Here's the thing: the best way to learn French is by immersion, by speaking it all the time when you're in the course. Then the course is over though, and you speak it when it's needed or when you feel like speaking it. Landmark should be the same way- while you're in the course, just do the exercises to learn, knowing that when the course is over, you don't have to do them anymore if they don't work for you. You can say no to any volunteer and walk away. I really feel badly that people have lost friends behind these courses, have come away from them with this much vitriol; I wish there were some way to take the charge off them so that they occur like taking immersion French rather than dangerous psychological meddling. Introductions to the Forum shouldn't be ambushes, they should be invitations. Sometimes Forum participants don't tell their guests what to expect, maybe because they don't know or they're afraid their guests will say no. I think people really do mean well; they want to share their breakthroughs with the people important to them, but sometimes the sharing just doesn't go well. I'm glad I took all those courses, overall I learned some pretty cool things. When I didn't want to take a course that was pitched to me, I said "no thanks," or "I'll think about it and decide by next week (or whenever)" if I was considering it. I hate the thought that some of you would like to see Landmark gone altogether because some people have struggled with some aspects of it. It was a great thing for me and for many others. I just wish it could be universally taken at face value and no more than that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But Landmark has a very sorry history of personal injury lawsuits, complaints and bad press.

See [www.culteducation.com]

I receive constant and very serious complaints about Landmark and would not recommend their courses to anyone under any circumstances.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This article and research pretty much covers what's wrong with mass marathon training like Landmark and why it has such a bad track record historically.

There is no peer-reviewed published research that demonstrates otherwise scientifically. Landmrk relies instead upon anecdotal stories.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also [www.culteducation.com]

Much of Landmark's "technology" can be paralleled to coercive persuasion techinques.

Landmark is a private for-profit company and it seems odd that so many people talk about it almost as if it is a religion or conversionary experience.

All Landmark really is really all about is a composite philosophy put together by Jack Rosenberg, now known as Werner Erhard.

"Getting it" is simply accepting Erhard's opinions and worldview, which contradicts many others (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.).

Sounds like they made quite a bit of money off of you through courses though.

It's odd how people volunteer for a for-profit company.

Wouldn't you think it would be odd if someone said, "I volunteer at Walmart"?

Again, smells like religion, but is packaged as "technology."