Quote
exImpact
[If your opinions are not strong or potent enough to brave this apparent "lack of niceness" tone, it is my opinion that hearing them is not necessary, simply for the fact that, notwithstanding criticism, you don't think they are important enough to be heard or that they cannot withstand scrutiny. So it comes down to either people withhold what they have to say for fear of criticism, or I hold back what I want to say for fear that I will be criticized for being critical.

I may be responding out of my own frustrations from another topic thread where a member must hold the same perception.

Although I disagree with this mindset. It is a black and white, all or nothing approach that means that one view point dominates another by sheer force of how it is argued.

I believe there is a balance in the middle. I am a staunch allie in exposing LGAT's. Yet there is a tolerance in me for those who come on here and post in favor of LGAT's when it is done in a manner that allows for both views on LGAT's to be allowed and to let a reader decide what to believe.

I have posted very strongly agianst LGAT's myself. I am not perfect as I have failed to be this in some of my posts. I can justify my failure by my being so hurt in my experience with Klemmer.

Although, I try to find a balance which is difficult to accomplish at times. Because I must allow for opposing views to be shared along with my views without being so arrogant as to shut down any and all opposing views to my own.

Doing that on this website will keep it a very good tool for those to read about LGAT's such as Impact. Yet there needs to be kept in mind that if this forum tips to far to one side of opinions. Then it becomes a extremely biased site without the ability to be used as a way to make an informed decision on matters such as an LGAT.

So, we need to allow for views to be shared that oppose us. While we do need to scrutinize content of posts. We need to allow for views to be shared when they are shared in a way that is allowing for a reader to decide what to believe.

We cross the line when we decide what a reader should believe or not believe.

I may be responding to my frustrations on another topic thread. If so, please allow me to fail forward in my working out my emotions from the interactions that I have recently had on this forum.

They have not been good, and I am heavily considering removing myself from this forum altogether.

Thanks.

Stating how there is a tolerance while deep sixing any opposing view is not tolerance it is domination.

I can't even say I am guiltless in this. I have reacted with extreme emotion at times that crossed this very line of tolerance to domination of my own views.

Yet, it doesn't mean this is not a valid point of view to have in making our posts on this site. Along with how we interact with those who post in opposition to the dominant views of this forum.

Because when it all comes right down to it. every single thing shared on this forum is a viewpoint.

Mind you, there are some view points that should be challenged, and some should be opposed strongly when there is not an allowance for there to be freedom for both views to be aired and letting the reader make an informed decision on matters.

Even though I am with everyone on exposing LGAT's. We need to be careful not to place ourselves in the arrogant stance of not being open to other viewpoints shared.

This is my biggest issue with an LGAT mindset. Because it goes to an extreme of shutting down opposing viewpoints by refusing to allow for an opposing viewpoint to exist in interacting with them.

I would hate to see this forum turn into the very same thing that I despise in LGAT's and how they interact with me.

Quote
Rswinters

Quote
exImpact
[If your opinions are not strong or potent enough to brave this apparent "lack of niceness" tone, it is my opinion that hearing them is not necessary, simply for the fact that, notwithstanding criticism, you don't think they are important enough to be heard or that they cannot withstand scrutiny. So it comes down to either people withhold what they have to say for fear of criticism, or I hold back what I want to say for fear that I will be criticized for being critical.

I may be responding out of my own frustrations from another topic thread where a member must hold the same perception.

Although I disagree with this mindset. It is a black and white, all or nothing approach that means that one view point dominates another by sheer force of how it is argued.

I believe there is a balance in the middle. I am a staunch allie in exposing LGAT's. Yet there is a tolerance in me for those who come on here and post in favor of LGAT's when it is done in a manner that allows for both views on LGAT's to be allowed and to let a reader decide what to believe.

I have posted very strongly agianst LGAT's myself. I am not perfect as I have failed to be this in some of my posts. I can justify my failure by my being so hurt in my experience with Klemmer.

Although, I try to find a balance which is difficult to accomplish at times. Because I must allow for opposing views to be shared along with my views without being so arrogant as to shut down any and all opposing views to my own.

Doing that on this website will keep it a very good tool for those to read about LGAT's such as Impact. Yet there needs to be kept in mind that if this forum tips to far to one side of opinions. Then it becomes a extremely biased site without the ability to be used as a way to make an informed decision on matters such as an LGAT.

So, we need to allow for views to be shared that oppose us. While we do need to scrutinize content of posts. We need to allow for views to be shared when they are shared in a way that is allowing for a reader to decide what to believe.

We cross the line when we decide what a reader should believe or not believe.

I may be responding to my frustrations on another topic thread. If so, please allow me to fail forward in my working out my emotions from the interactions that I have recently had on this forum.

They have not been good, and I am heavily considering removing myself from this forum altogether.

Thanks.

What is so black and white? How can I decide what a reader should believe or not? This is an OPEN forum, and I am not a moderator. Anyone can post whatever they want. Anyone can read and give or take what they want. Newsflash RS, this IS an extremely biased site!!! CULTS/LGAT's/DAMAGING, CONTROLLING GROUPS are BAD. Isn't that why you have come to this site? You more than anyone else on these boards has posted a biased and negative standpoint against LGAT's. You said, “So, we need to allow for views to be shared that oppose us. While we do need to scrutinize content of posts. We need to allow for views to be shared when they are shared in a way that is allowing for a reader to decide what to believe.” Well, you are still talking about controlling how content is shared RS.

Quote
Rswinters

Even though I am with everyone on exposing LGAT's. We need to be careful not to place ourselves in the arrogant stance of not being open to other viewpoints shared.

This is my biggest issue with an LGAT mindset. Because it goes to an extreme of shutting down opposing viewpoints by refusing to allow for an opposing viewpoint to exist in interacting with them.

I would hate to see this forum turn into the very same thing that I despise in LGAT's and how they interact with me.

After reading this, I wanted to ask you, why are you on this website, RS? Is it because you want to hear how good Brian Klemmer is? Or how his associates can help people despite your damages? Or are you mad as hell? How in gods name could the rick ross website and these message boards EVER become anything like an LGAT? How much have you paid to post on here? How many times have you been lied to and humiliated on these pages? How many times have you sat in a darkly lighted room where people yell insults at you since you began posting on the Rick Ross website?

The problem here is that if you want to stop someone from discriminating someone else, you have to discriminate against that person. Why would you want to discriminate against your ally? Someone who shares your viewpoints and empathizes with you?

This “grey area” you speak of is still a grey area to me. You never get clear on how to strike that “balance”, you only express a belief in one. Essentially, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

It is infuriating to me that I have to justify what I have written on these pages when I am merely doing what these pages were intended for. I am in opposition to the mindsets, philosophies, methods, strategies and unethical behavior utilized by the Impact Trainings and LGAT’s in general. And yet another page on the thread is wasted…

I have had it. I will post exclusively on Impact related issues from here on out. When my personal "thoughts" and "feelings" are warm and fuzzy, only then will I post them...

ExImpact. I am on the team of exposing LGAT's. I am not on the team that views faith and science as seperate.

I will call into account the contradiction on this matter that exists on this website.

If I am not allowed to remain because of this view.

So be it.

I just ask for the same standard to be applied to all views. Even are negative analysis of things.

Biased yes, but biased towards what needs to be biased agianst here.

LGAT's such as Impact, and Klemmer are what we need to be biased agianst.

Not a persons faith.

Quote
formerimpactgrad
8. Hans claims to speak for God when training in the Impact Trainings. I heard him say on more than one occasion, "When I am up infront of a group in Quest", the first of the core trainings, "Its not me speaking, Jesus, God, Lord Michael, St Germaine and the other masters are speaking through me. Impact is not my training, it is theirs, taken directly from God." Despite this, Hans has claimed that Impact is not a religion or a threat to religion when he has been questioned by local ecclesiastical leaders.

See now that scares the CRAP out of me
The trainer on the workshops I attended is nothing like this

If he was i would have been out of there faster then you can say "Transformation"

IMHO any man who stands up and professes to speak for god should be avoided at all costs.

Quote
Rswinters
ExImpact. I am on the team of exposing LGAT's. I am not on the team that views faith and science as seperate.

I will call into account the contradiction on this matter that exists on this website.

If I am not allowed to remain because of this view.

So be it.

I just ask for the same standard to be applied to all views. Even are negative analysis of things.

Biased yes, but biased towards what needs to be biased agianst here.

LGAT's such as Impact, and Klemmer are what we need to be biased agianst.

Not a persons faith.

If you are referring to my responses to hopefulsoul's posts, I invite you to look again.

Quote
exImpact

Quote
Hopeful Soul
Army-of-me,

No need to apologize for your comments of yesterday questioning my comment on the Impact learning statement, “The purpose of life is to learn.” Your reaction is typical of LDS folks exposed to the Impact false, vain and foolish doctrine....

Quote
army-of-me

Quote
Hopeful Soul
The purpose of life therefore for a Mormon is not to learn, as Impact says, but to prove who will pass the obedience to God test.

Hopeful, this quote doesn't [i:f2b4be943f]quite[/i:f2b4be943f] align with what I've read in my religious studies. Since this isn't the forum for this kind of discussion, though, please IM me if you want to discuss it. :)

Hey Hopeful Soul, it is my opinion (I may be in error) that you misunderstood Army's entire post. It is not [i:f2b4be943f]only[/i:f2b4be943f] the first part of what you said that Army quoted that they disagree with (Impact's "purpose of life is to learn") but rather your [i:f2b4be943f]entire[/i:f2b4be943f] statement is suspect. That is why the whole statement was quoted. Your opinion that the purpose of life for an LDS person is to "prove who will pass the obedience to God test.", is also what Army finds contentious. I am inclined to agree with Army. That opinion (as well as many others you have posted btw) does not reflect what my study has escavated, nor does it [i:f2b4be943f]necessarily [/i:f2b4be943f]reflect the opinions of the majority of active Mormons I know.

I am not saying your opinion is wrong or right, I am saying it is inappropriate for one to assume their opinion or beliefs are universally held by everyone within their organization.

In the future, please be [i:f2b4be943f]careful [/i:f2b4be943f]when you assume you speak for an entire group of people. Diversity of belief and varying interpretation of doctrine exists within any religious group, I have found this is particularly true for the Mormons.

P.S.: From what I could read, Army didn't apologize for anything they said in that post. Only for "going off topic". I apologize for that as well, and as with Army, I'd like you to PM me if you want to further this conversation .

I addressed not Hopeful’s faith, but rather their assumption that their belief mirrors what ALL Mormons believe. I have done nothing but championed the unique problems Impact poses for it’s mormon clients. But when someone says something religious and there is a response that contains something other than reverent acceptance, all of a sudden I am an unreasonable, HARSHLY judgemental bastard. It seems that some people are confusing criticism with personal attack. This is an error in judgment.

Besides, if someone can post their religious beliefs, should not the same courtesy be extended to those who do not, or even “gasp” have anti-religious sentiment? Free speech goes both ways my friend, and censorship is a two edged sword.

Besides, it’s not like anti-religious sentiment is a foreign topic on these forums. Have you been to the destructive churches or the actual “cults” pages? Compared to what some people are allowed say there, the criticisms that have been voiced on this board could be seen as fluffy bunny talk.

I don’t have to be a Mormon (anymore) to know and respect the culture and the theology. Nor do I think that religious belief is above scrutiny or conversation. In fact, if I were to be honest, I could tell you why I believe certain types of Mormons as well as other religious types to be exceptionally susceptible to the manipulations of the Impact trainings, but I have withheld MY contributions in that vein for the very reasons that have shown themselves on the last few pages on this board.

Rswinters wrote:

Quote

ExImpact. I am on the team of exposing LGAT's. I am not on the team that views faith and science as seperate.

I will call into account the contradiction on this matter that exists on this website.

If I am not allowed to remain because of this view.

So be it.

I just ask for the same standard to be applied to all views. Even are negative analysis of things.

Biased yes, but biased towards what needs to be biased agianst here.

LGAT's such as Impact, and Klemmer are what we need to be biased agianst.

Not a persons faith.

exImpact wrote:

Quote

If you are referring to my responses to hopefulsoul's posts, I invite you to look again.

Rswinters was not referring to Hopeful Soul's posts, he was referring to a debate on the Genesis Program thread. His faith - science comments have nothing to do with Impact and do not belong here.

Rswinters, if you want to have a debate about religion go back to the geneis program thread where you started the subject, and answer my questions, without resorting to personal attacks and mis-quoting.

Have some respect for other people on the board by not filling up other threads with your campaign against me and your paranoia about christianity-bashing on this board. Have some respect for other people's religions, faith, belief and opinions.

Every time you claim that you have scientific proof of christianity you are implying that Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taosm and a host of other religions as well as atheism are wrong. If you want to debate it, fine - but not on this thread. exImpact & co have enough problems trying to deal with the all the trolls and apologists here without having to waste time replying to your off-topic messages about your religion, as ex has just done.

To whom it may concern:

Read the rules again for this message board.

This is not the place to debate religious issues, theology, science vs. religion etc.

This thread is about an LGAT called "Impact."

Please do not attempt to change the subject, focus and/or purpose of this thread.

Preaching beliefs is not the purpose of this message board, as stated in the rules, preaching is prohibited.

Quote
Maxui

Quote
formerimpactgrad
8. Hans claims to speak for God when training in the Impact Trainings. I heard him say on more than one occasion, "When I am up infront of a group in Quest", the first of the core trainings, "Its not me speaking, Jesus, God, Lord Michael, St Germaine and the other masters are speaking through me. Impact is not my training, it is theirs, taken directly from God." Despite this, Hans has claimed that Impact is not a religion or a threat to religion when he has been questioned by local ecclesiastical leaders.

See now that scares the CRAP out of me
The trainer on the workshops I attended is nothing like this

If he was i would have been out of there faster then you can say "Transformation"

IMHO any man who stands up and professes to speak for god should be avoided at all costs.

Maxui, did you attend any of the Impact trainings? What is your experience with Impact or LGAT's in general?

Per Ricks request that he has posted.

I take responsibility for my part of the huge debate that has taken place between SaneAgain and myself on several threads.

It was a hot topic of faith and science. It got ugly on both sides.

I am sorry for posting in connection to this argument that got out of control between us.

I will keep posts on this thread to Impact, and or how Klemmer & Associates are similar which have been welcomed in the past.

Please keep the belief on faith from any angle. For or agianst in check as they are all beliefs that can be taken to a religious level in either one of these views.

As long as this rule is applied equally to both views of belief? I will be trying to follow rules as requested.

When there is a contradiction and it is not being followed by another religious viewpoint. I will oppose even to the point of being banned if necessary in challenging it.

So. Impact. I am back on track to expose this and all LGAT's.