Quote
rrmoderator
The primary difference between the two LGATs seems to be the addition of certain religious beliefs. Isn't that so?

That is so.

Religious Brainwashing - Impact’s Dirty Skirts

There is a most interesting piece written by attorney Marci Hamilton on the Elizabeth Smart experience. As I read it I likened the Smart experience to that of an Impact trainee. Brian David Mitchell was her trainer. He used mental manipulation connected to Smart’s religion. One who has lost her free will is no less a prisoner. She was processed to the point of voluntary submission just as are many Impact trainees and especially TIT graduates. Hamilton notes that, “The violence done to Smart’s mind was every bit as heinous as the violence done to her physically-and both criminal and civil law should recognize that.” This is a very relevant piece of legal reasoning that could serve justice well in Utah and everywhere. The article addresses French law which makes brainwashing a crime and some reasons why we have not followed suit in the U.S.



See: [writ.corporate.findlaw.com]

Hopeful

I'm sorry if I missed it, but was there an outline of the process used by Impact at their trainings? I would like to put one together for the MKP. I think it would be useful to demonstrate that these are different groups often doing the same things, as RSWinters states. People's personal stories are extremely important, I would just like to add a common framework that people can refer to, in order to clearly show that the seminars are orchestrated to bring about certain reactions.

Quote
unresolved
I'm sorry if I missed it, but was there an outline of the process used by Impact at their trainings? I would like to put one together for the MKP. I think it would be useful to demonstrate that these are different groups often doing the same things, as RSWinters states. People's personal stories are extremely important, I would just like to add a common framework that people can refer to, in order to clearly show that the seminars are orchestrated to bring about certain reactions.

So far there hasn't been anything with that much detailed posted on this thread. I think exImpact is putting something together for the TIT trainings but those would probably have different processes than MKP.

On the Impact Trainings page Rick has attached the following description of an LGAT training:

[www.culteducation.com]

This link describes about 90% of the Quest Training. Quest is only 4 days, instead of five, and the final day of the training is devoted to some pseudo-Mormon theology and recruiting for the second level (Summit). Everything else it pretty much spot on.

Hope this helps!

This page continues the description from the link above, for advanced training (I don't know how much of it applies to Impact, but it does to Quest-seminars in South Africa).

The links are at the bottom of the page under the heading: "The fictional LGAT - a stones throw away from the truth".

There are five different types of programs described, as well as the general basic and advanced.

[perso.orange.fr]

I have a question about how group dynamics are manipulated in the trainings and I thought I'd ask it on this thread, because there are so many members here with significant experience staffing trainings.

Is there an explicit plan to set up different group members in the trainings with specific roles... e.g. leader, scapegoat, good model, bad model etc? If so how is this played on by the trainers and staffers?

I don't mean the use of specific character roles as in stretches, but more of a general assignment of role and status that lasts throughout a particular course.

Yes there are certainly group dynamics in Impact that are difficult to explain and comprehend. Its hard to please that many people and get them all to accpet anything. But as far as I could see, Impact trainers and staff didn't have an explicit plan to set up any members of the training to fit any role.

As the group dynamics worked themselves out, some people fit those roles themselves. We had a buddy not show up after a break and were told to go out and "handle it". Like we knew what to do! This type of group thing came up several times and certain people used their voices and were vocal, while the majority were quiet or contentious, disagreeable, argumentative, silent.... They carved their own roles out and filled them.

To take that point a little further...I was thinking that while Impact didn't single out people to fill certain roles, maybe group dynamics and the things trainers asked groups to do were meant to get the trainees to fill the roles themselves. This was most certainly designed to be part of the training.

Certainly the large group dynamics were frustrating and usually not very productive. Everyone wanted something different than the next person. I hated them.

One of the most aparent group dynamics was at The Wall and Shark Island where everyone had to work together in silence. A handful of people were the ones who took control and everyone else went along with it, whether they agreed or not. Probably the same people who took leadership on one were the same ones who were the leaders on the other.

Passionate.

In case you are not aware. Todays posts are saying exactly what makes Impact a carbon copy of other LGAT's and visa versa.

You'll get no argument from me that these same dynamics are used in all other trainings, and I am sure you experienced them at Klemmer.