Quote
Passionate
I do stand by my post that morals are relative.

Yes, fine, morals are relative to history, culture, society, country and other macro-variables. Fine with that. Morality changes from society to society and within a society it changes with time.
Yet, that still doesn't justify the LGATs. Relatively to this day and age and the free world countries, brain-washing, deception, lies, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, and all the other things that the LGATs are so fond of, they are immoral.
Passionate, you are not alone. So 'morals are relative' does not mean 'I'll do whatever i wanna do'. It's more like 'For the good of this society, in this moment of history we draw some moral lines based on this culture and these experiences'.

I'm from London. In London, mind control is immoral and emotional abuse is immoral too and illegal. If you don't agree with this morals, take Impact, Quest, Landmark and bring them somewhere else but not here. And if you do, you have to pay if you hurt people.
Morals are relative. Unfortunately for you, relatively to Europe cults and brainwashing are wrong. If relatively to you they're fine keep Impact, Landmark in a country where brainwashing is legal. Try some regime, i don't know, but stay away from my home.
Oh, more thing: I speak from an european point of view, but I'm not sure cults are welcome in the US morality. The might be legal loopholes helping them to survive but morally, i think most of americans would be against such things. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not to say that establishment is always right, but if you truly believe in what you say, then, well, you're in a democracy. Tell the people about all the nasty things that happen in those rooms and ask them to vote to make all that legal. If this 'technologies' are so good as you believe, show them to the public and make them vote to protect them from all us naughty heretics/unenlightened/out of possibility/reactive/etc. And let's see what happens.
But be open about it, not 'it's a surprise you have to see it for yourself'. Imagine a president wanting to be elected just by saying 'people who know me love me. I can't say what i'm gonna do cause you have to elect me to understand me. Be open minded and don't judge me'. Would you vote for him? (Actually, i think you would.Sorry, wrong example).

I mean, morals are relative, but that means there are morals DIFFERENT THAN YOURS OUT THERE and you'll have to deal with it. "You are you". Fine.But the others are not. And I'm gonna close with this: if Impact grads or landamarkians are 'perfect just the way they are', then pefection is pretty disappointing. Far below expectations.

PS 'You' is not personal. I'm talking of cult apologists and adepts and all of them who say 'morals are relative' in defence of their cults.

Was fatherof3 a reincarnation of Otter?

Passionate,

Excellent question! Impact does more than dabble in religion, it is a religion. This gets into the real guts of the corruption of scripture that Impact “dabbles” in. I don’t profess to have all of the answers on the subject, but here are a few scriptural references from the Bible: John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.”; Micah 5:2. “...out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Christ is the Great I Am, thus the use of the various forms of the verb “to be.” This all ties neatly into the further corruption of John 14:12, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” In the mastery training, trainees are given the notion that they are literally Christs, with the power to do greater things than Christ did based upon their own godhood. With just the bible to go on I can’t provide argument that will refute that interpretation. There is, thank God, later revelation on the subject.

I’m no longer surprised at any of the idiocy I see coming out of Impact Trainings. Is this any more outlandish than the notion that the victims of the holocaust attracted this catastrophe and brought it down upon themselves? I recently looked at the Impact sponsored forum, which has the testimonials of LDS folks who go on and on about how Impact has brought new spiritual sensitivity to their lives and new gospel insight to their lives etc. Impact has brought new meaning to the terms false and vain and foolish doctrine. Their corruption of scripture is not new, but they have carried it to unprecedented heights. I must end this now, it’s making me sick.

Hopeful

Maurice, well said. I totally agree with you there. Unfortunately in this country it is not against the law to run a company like Impact. When I said morality is relative, I didn't use it in a context to include Impact, I meant morality, to ME, is relative. What is moral to me may not be moral to someone else because we all have our own set of rules that define morality for ourselves. Impact doesn't believe in morals at all, relative or not. They do whatever they like to make money. I'd hazard a guess and say that making money IS their morality, at whatever costs.

Hopeful, I know many LDS people who would not agree with Impact's testimonials about how their spirituality was increased through the trainings. Some were shaken, some were torn down altogether. I think ExImpact said he was an LDS follower until the trainings and then became disillusioned by all kinds of religious stuff (Ex, correct me if I am wrong).

Quote
Passionate
I do stand by my post that morals are relative. Here's a good article that describes morality and the philosophy of them:

[en.wikipedia.org]

In the introduction if the wikipedia article about moral relativism, it says:

Quote
Wikipedia: Moral Relativism
In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism

Did you read the article? To me, it seems as though you are taking the exact view (the pop culture view) that the article clearly states has little to do with the rest of the text which talks about the philosophical ideas regarding moral relativism.

Also, this article is only describing what the philosophy of moral relativism is, it's not a really a promotion of moral relativism. It would be the same as if I took the opposing view of moral relativism, and said:

I stand by my views that morals are absolute. Here's a good article that describes morality and the philosophy of them (sic):
[en.wikipedia.org]

If you really stand by moral relativism, can you defend it?

Quote
Wikipedia: Moral Relativism
...various historical and cultural events and practices (including the Holocaust, Stalinism, Apartheid in South Africa, genocide, unjust wars, genital mutilation, slavery, terrorism, Nazism, etc.) present difficult problems for relativists, because these acts, which are condemned by the "majority of people" everywhere, are not absolutely "bad" from a relativist perspective. This is, in fact, exactly what moral relativism states, and there is no self-contradiction in it. But what the objectivist is pointing to is the contradiction he sees between moral relativism and the wrongness of the Holocaust, which he takes be indisputable. The relativist, in turn, can stick to his ground and insist that the Holocaust is not absolutely wrong, and that it is a matter of opinion.

Are you prepared to stick to your ground and tell us that you believe the holocaust, genocide, slavery, etc to be not absolutely wrong, and only a matter of opinion?

Passionate:

All LGATs have essentially the same dynamics and basic process.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also [www.culteducation.com]

No I wouldn't take it that far...extremes of any idea tend to be a bit weird. Like if you were to be an extremist absolutionist you would support these quotes taken from you link:

Quote

For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a committed monogamous relationship

and

Quote

Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).

Rick, thanks again for the great links. I must explore more of these resources you have here. They are without a doubt well written and informative.

My uncle went through Landmark a few months ago and after talking to him confirmed my early suspicion: All LGAT's are extremely similar and not unique as someone posted earlier. Before talking to him I didn't really explore how other LGAT's did their stuff. They are all a spin-off of EST and its founder Werner H. Erhard. Mine eyes have been opened.

Please don't pull the thread away from the focus, which is Impact.

Quote
Passionate
Was fatherof3 a reincarnation of Otter?

No, he wasn't.

To whom it may concern:

After being banned from the board fatherof3 emailed me the following:

Quote

"I guess if you have something positive to say you are not wanted. I thought it was suppose to be an open thread but I can see now that it isn’t. No wonder everyone in there is so negative because all you do is kick them out if they aren’t."

And then this email.

Quote

"I didn’t know the rules say you have to be negative and you have to hate to be on this site. Everyone I come across that talks about your website I will for surely tell them my experience and how I was kicked out for being positive."