I tried creating my own thread for this, but it didn't work.

There was a lady that was telling me about how she was convinced to go to Landmark. At the time, she was in a wheelchair unable to walk from arthritis. She said that the Forum's teachings allowed her to overcome this arthritis (which the doctors said was uncurable) and let her walk again.

I am a skeptic about the Forum. Has this happened with anyone else? Could this story be a hoax? I really don't know what to think about this.

Hi Mikazo,

How well and how long have you known her. It's difficult to give an opinion on what happened as no one knows what goes on inside someone elses psyche and body. She may have had an emotional problem manifesting itself as a physical condition, joint inflammation, which is what arthritis is. She must have really wonderful insight to be alleviated in one weekend of something so serious that it caused her to be in a wheelchair. The body, in most cases, cannot respond and repair that quickly. My landlady has severe arthritis and she is depressed about it. Therefore, instead of exercising, she sits and watches TV, which makes the pain worse. She is planning on buying a wheelchair, even though investing in a personal trainer could probably prevent her condition from worsening, it would be a social encounter for her and it would physically help her condition, thereby easing her depression. So, there are a lot of factors that go into physical problems.

Doctors don't recognize all the facets of disease and also misdiagnose, too. I've suffered from a condition for 20+ years that has been misdiagnosed and treated with things that actually worsen the real condition. However, my Landmark volunteers chastised me for saying my doctors were wrong, and asked what was I getting out of running the racket that I was running. If I had listened to them, what I should have done was grin and bear it, but I kept searching for answers and found them and was actually properly diagnosed on 9/13/02. I may actually need surgery now.

So, there are a lot of variables. Think about what you hope to get out of it, however, Landmark doesn't give you much information beforehand. Read Rick Ross's postings on people's personal experiences. For the most part, mine was the same. Landmark wants to be one-size-fits-all, but it can't.

Hope

On a related note, my Forum leader said that a large number of employees at the U.S. State Department had taken the Forum. Either he misspoke and was talking about the IRS, or I'm going to be up nights in a cold sweat!

It's been a year since my Forum and I still think about some of the "technology" of Landmark. Perhaps the Forum would be good for business, but then, for the same reasons, I think not. For instance, their idea of commitment. Maybe I got this all wrong at Landmark, but I don't think so. The leaders talked about finding what you are committed to, and whatever doesn't work, discard. Don't think. Thinking is the problem. Or, is it that you're just not supposed to think DURING the Forum? Does this trying-and-discarding equate to creative thinking? If someone isn't a creative-thinker, does this technology help him or her at all? What if the employee is codependent, introverted, dyslexic, under extreme personal stress and not working at 100% capacity? If one goes about trying and discarding, where is the critical thinking? This might work for ideas, but what about with people, hiring and firing? Someone who is not relationship oriented and\or egocentric, might find this particular technology quite validating. However, Landmark's main theme is that individuals are responsible for their own happiness. So if businesses are sending their employees to Landmark, is Landmark providing a special business program so that all these people striving for individual happiness can get along? I'm not being facetious. There are so many mixed messages, but then again, Landmark says there is no right, no wrong, no good, no bad - it's all a perception. (So, if the IRS comes to my house and wants to audit me because they said I did something wrong on 1999's tax forms, can I tell them it's just their perception?)

Any Landmarkers out there willing to help me out here?

Hi Hope, you asked if any Landmarkers would like to help out.

I have read this thread, I believe I understand your points and your view.

Before I address your post, I will give my history in Landmark. I am not an LEC employee, although I have assisted as a volunteer periodically. My comments are from personal experience, and do not necessarily reflect LEC's views or technology

I did the Forum in 95 after attending a Tuesday night guest event that a Forum graduate friend invited me to. I was not a 'group experience type' or 'personal growth devotee' prior to this, but I was recently divorced at the time and 'saw a possibility for myself' from taking this course, so I registered.

What occurred for me out of taking the course can truly be described as transformational. I reconnected with many people who I had cut off contact with [ almost all of whom are still in regular contact with me now], I revamped my attitude about work after some serious self observation, reduced complaining in my life, and generally became more effective in all areas of life.

There were a few pitfalls , though, especially in the immediate months following my participation in the Forum. I was so inspired by the results that I had gotten, I became possibly too insistent that others around me take the course, and became attached to people acknowledging the value I had recieved from Landmark. This is a trap that indicates I had not completely assimilated the
zen-based disitinction of 'non- attached but committed '.
I have since apologized to my Mom and others for judging them and have since experienced great joy and being OK with them exactly as they are.

In the years that followed, I have softened my judgement of others and grew increasingly tolerant of all ways of being of those around me. My friends and family would attest to this. I attribute this ability or state directly to my consistent application of the distinctions learned from my participation in Landmark.

Since 95 I have taken a few LEC seminars, and am currently participating in the Landmark Wisdom Course. there have been long periods where I did not participate in any LEC programs, and at no time did I receive any pressure to 'rejoin' or anything like that. I returned to do more courses at my own pace.

I have noticed that criticism of LEC's programs often centers around a feeling of pressure to 'join' or a perception of superiority in LEC graduates or leaders. I believe that some of this can be attributed to the type of exuberance that occurs from the possibilites that participants see open up for themselves as result of their work in LEC, as I described above. My overall experience in being around LEC types has left me with a belief that the average LEC graduate/trainer has an above average ability to empathize with other people's views or situations. However, sometimes the non-LEC person's view of this empathy does not conform to the traditional 'agreement' view of suffering that the recipient is looking for. I hope this does not sound judgmental, it is only meant to illustrate that the perception may be different on both sides of the situation.


Hope, I would like to address some of your comments individually:

quote:<<<'For instance, their idea of commitment. Maybe I got this all wrong at Landmark, but I don't think so. The leaders talked about finding what you are committed to, and whatever doesn't work, discard.>>>

All forums are different so I cannot say what did or didn't occur at your forum. But I have generally never perceived anyone in LEC to tell me to discard commitments. What I HAVE seen/heard is that some people, when looking at thir lives, find that the reasons they had committed to certain things were for reasons that were not based in clear intention or thought. It is unreasonalbe to think that any person could ever fulfill on ALL commitments they ever make, so LEC possibly presents the view that some commitments are actually better left unfulfilled. But the general idea is that our word is an important aspect of our power in the world, so commitment is important.

quote: <<<Don't think. Thinking is the problem. Or, is it that you're just not supposed to think DURING the Forum? Does this trying-and-discarding equate to creative thinking? >>>

I think your perception that someone told you not to think may have come from an invitation to step outside of the normal way we think. In my experience, distinctions in the Forum are not presented as the truth or facts, but merely concepts to consider. Often even considering these concepts challenges our established modes of thinking and possibly even causes our identity to be challenged. It can be scary stuff, and thus I understand your reaction to this. Again, I say this with total respect to you.

quote:<<<If someone isn't a creative-thinker, does this technology help him or her at all?>>>

My life has taught me that all humans posess the abiilty to think creatively. whether I am right or wrong on this, it gives me a fun/powerful/productive way to approach my interactions with people , as I honor the intelligence and creativity of every person I meet. People in my life would attest to this about me. Given this, I believe that anyone who is interested in getting the benefits of LEC courses has the ability to do so.

quote:<<<What if the employee is codependent, introverted, dyslexic, under extreme personal stress and not working at 100% capacity? If one goes about trying and discarding, where is the critical thinking?>>>
Good question! To some people, it might appear that participants are just following a process that the course leader is suggesting, but the intention [ as I understand it] is to invite the participant to examine their own beliefs and patterns through a series of interesting questions and challenges. Trying and discarding are just two of hundreds of options available to anyone any time. Critical thinking is also an option. The idea is to examine/ identify pre- existing thoughts and beliefs so that more choices are available. I KNOW this can be challenging!

quote:<<<This might work for ideas, but what about with people, hiring and firing? Someone who is not relationship oriented and\or egocentric, might find this particular technology quite validating.>>>

In my experience, many people who have applied their results from LEC training to their lives, both personally and professionally have experienced increased ease and effectiveness in dealing with all sorts of life situations. I don' know if this answers your question though.

quote:<<<However, Landmark's main theme is that individuals are responsible for their own happiness>>>

I don't know if this is the main theme, but I agree that it is a principle that is quite central to the technology.

quote:<<<So if businesses are sending their employees to Landmark, is Landmark providing a special business program so that all these people striving for individual happiness can get along? I'm not being facetious.>>>

Again, my experience with many LEC grads is that the results show up in all areas of their life, so a separate course may not be necessary. For example, my personal experience is that LEC grads have a higher than average rate of successful marriages, and are reporting increased communication and connectedness with people in their lives.


quote:<<<<There are so many mixed messages, but then again, Landmark says there is no right, no wrong, no good, no bad - it's all a perception.>>>

Life has many dichotomies. I don't think LEC has an official position on good/bad, right wrong, etc. I think Landmark explores the concept that when one relates to a situation as wrong, for example, the person may be affecting the outcome by the way he/she is relating to it. By taking responsibility for our perception of what happens, we increase our ability to be effective. Again, just something to consider, not necessarily the truth or anything, just a concept to play with.

Quote from an earlier post:<<<. For the most part, mine was the same. Landmark wants to be one-size-fits-all, but it can't.>>>

I have an opposite experience of LEC's view on this. In many of LEC's brochures and lectures, I have read and heard it said that the Landmark experience occurs differently for all people. It is an inquiry into the nature of being, so what occurs for each person is a function of what that person brings to it.

Hope, I am sorry that your experience of LEC has left you with this feeling. I believe that you are a great person.
Thank you for the invitation to write about this.
Take care.

Joe

Joe,

Thank you for your comments. I think my biggest complaint about my Landmark Forum was that the people who called me incessantly were playing doctor. I was being treated by a quack, who turned out to be very much involved with Landmark. I've already posted some of what occured with this person. I've recently found out how lucky I am to be alive. He decided my medical problems were my racket and ran his own forum on him. Now that I've been properly diagnosed, I'm out "doing", as I was before I met this person. The treatment I'm going through now is exactly what he learned at his naturopathic college, yet he insisted at the time when I brought up suggestions that it was all symptom control, that this was deeper, blah, blah. By the time I signed up for Landmark, things felt pretty hopeless. The Landmark people then did the same thing he did. When I tried to postpone attendance, they insisted they could cause breakthroughs that would help me feel better. In essence, they were playing doctor. When I drove down to the site to check out the area, parking, places to find food, I found there was NO PLACE OPEN in the area as the site was located in an industrial park that was pretty much closed up on weekends. They did not say that there would be assignments, which are pretty much key to having a successful Forum, all done during breaks. They wanted a body to fill one more seat. Their "informed consent" asks if you are well, and after reading this, I called to explain my situation. They decided I was well. It took several days to recover physically from the weekend.

The Forum was nothing new. I've studied eastern philosophy, yet the person I spoke with insisted it was not based on anything eastern - which is sort of true - it is very watered down.
I discussed this beforehand on many phone calls. I did not want to put myself through a long weekend if there wasn't going to be anything earth-shattering. What I got out of the Forum was a feeling of "I can't win." If my health had been better, I would have been doing more. I had planned a career change two years prior and went to cooking school. I've always prided myself on thinking outside the box.

I was involved in my doctor's circle for a short time and witnessed the "try-and-discard" method of using people for personal gain. At the time, I did not know these people were seriously involved in Landmark, but being around them was very uncomfortable. They took comments as complaints, and persistently commented on who was not being responsible (for instance, side effects from medication were the patient's responsibility for taking it). My doctor commented that I was responsible for my transmission going on my car because I had bought a Ford product. It was nearly impossible to finish a conversation without someone interrupting with their observations.

The doctor himself broke several major ethical rules, one by having a dual relationship with me, and then blamed me for crossing boundaries. He has not taken responsibility for anything, in fact, has avoided confronting me at all. This is the kind of behavior I've seen with Landmark participants.

I can appreciate looking at old problems from new angles, but what I've seen with relationships and what I've experienced, is a Landmark version of narcissist supply. When one no longer serves a useful purpose, dump them, with no explanation, or better yet, devalue them.

Perhaps it was my particular forum, but there were several people who left, feeling as if they had been abused. One participant knows a Landmark volunteer (who is a psychologist), who said ours was a tough group that didn't want to open up. Well, I really couldn't blame the people for not speaking up after what they did to the first person to tell his story.

But the thing is, there is a lot of truth and useful information to be had with Landmark. In many cases, I think they can "see" an underlying pattern of behavior that causes a problem, can probably figure that it comes from some event (which is usually a major event among years of dysfunctional behavior), and reveal that pattern to a participant. But these people cannot be dropped at the end of a weekend. The Seminar Series was a joke. It's just more sales and brief repetition of key concepts. Psychotherapy, which my leader went to great lengths to mock, takes a while because for many people it's hard to see issues. What Landmark does is bypasses therapy, says your life is this way because this happened, get over it. I've worked for doctors for 15 years, transcribing their reports. I know how a gallbladder is removed, but it doesn't mean I can remove it. I wouldn't know how to stop the bleeding, how to avoid nerves, etc. Landmark basically does the same thing, tries to remove the dysfunction without stopping the bleeding or avoiding the nerves.

The other concern is that my doctor was grooming me to go to Landmark and then build his empire. Looking back, it almost appears he set up a crisis situation so I would just give in. Landmark should know this is a boundary violation of patient-practitioner trust yet they encourage it. This is dangerous.

If I had listened to my doctor and Landmark people, I would be dead. Instead, I followed my gut and kept searching until I found the answer, and now I'm getting healthy. If I had stuck with Landmark and my doctor, I'd be kicking myself for not being able to see where I was not taking responsibility and therefore remaining unhealthy. My doctor shouted at me, after putting me into a chemical depression, that he was personally sick of my negativity and that it was time I took responsibility. Landmark wanted to know why I was "making him wrong". Well - he was. And they were sure quick to hand me a full refund - didn't want to know anything about the details of my complaint, just wanted me to shut up and go away.

Amazing to look back and see how I defended Landmark. I still have setbacks of depression and a feeling of loss of self and that anything matters. I'm functioning ok and have done a lot of things these past two years, but it's a robot-like feeling some times.

Hope,

I've heard it called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Don't get sucked into nonsense monologues delivered by LEC grads or plants. You'll notice that their spewage is redirection or misdirection.

The fact is you and others are hypnotized without your knowledge or permission. Anchors were planted and levers used on you.

You will notice some of them in their rants.

You may want to report that ND to his governing board. He may not know what he is doing, in regards to LEC, but, none the less, his behaviour is unethical.

Mr. Fawkes:

A lot of people are not familiar with LEC terminology but are concerned by how friends and loved ones have reportedly changed after participating in LEC events.

When you have chance to do so could you give a list of basic LEC concepts and define them so non-LEC'rs can recognize this pattern of behavior?

1) What is misdirection and re-direction? Give examples and then tell us how to block these moves.

2) What are 'levers' and 'anchors'? Whats the difference? How do you know where one has been implanted in your thought/emotion process and how do you remove this from your inner life?

3) What, precisely is a 'rant?' How do you tell the difference between a 'rant' and an authentic display of human emotion?
Is a rant a sort of 'canned' 'pre-rehearsed' message that the rantee uses to 1) fend off external criticism and 2) preserve his or her trance state?

I am curious because I have noticed that some people who have never been in authoritarian/indoctrinational groups also have 'pre-rehearsed' speeches that they'll blast off on at the slightest pretext.

I knew a man who had been a hippie, got scared and forced himself to repudiate all the joys of his youth. He reverted to rigid, doctrinaire Catholicism and turned it into personal cult. He would bore the living daylights out of people by going on rants about the glories of Catholic family life and his eyes would glaze over.

Once, he did let himself remember how much fun he had as a hippie, and he seemed to 'come alive'. Suddenly he remembered he was daring to ENJOY remembering the 'sinful' time in his life and his eyes got anxious then glazed over as he launched into a tiresome, all too familiar speech about the glories of Catholicism.

Is this the same as a LEC rant?