Quote

Is it a cult, is it not? The eternal question. That makes it a cult. Got it? Simple closed system of logic. It doesn't have to be a declared religion to be a cult. You want to cast doubt in my mind? That's cultish. Another paradox. That's cultish too. Got it? There is no ending to this argumentation and this is how Landmark/EST was designed to be. An enigma with no way out. And that's definitely cultish.

I am having trouble understanding your logic. All I did was ask you why Landmark is a cult. Your answer here is that just by asking you the question, that is what makes Landmark a cult?

I totally understand the part about not being declared "a cult", but how does asking you what YOU think make it into a cult? My intention in the question was not to create a cult just by asking, but to understand how you identified it as one.

Quote

I was aggressively recruited (red flag at the time) by a spin-off of Lifespring.

I do not know what lifespring is. PLease advise. Is Lifespring related somehow to Landmark?

Quote
nutrino
The great looming [i:534cda4f7a] canard [/i:534cda4f7a] is whether an organization is a religion or not, and how this explicit religiosity or lack of it is essential for cultness. One could spend ages going round in circles on the religion question. The are businesses that have cult aspects, military organizations that have cult aspects, even strange social phenomena like the child beauty pagent world may have [i:534cda4f7a] aspects [/i:534cda4f7a] of cultness. As I have thought about this, one signal feature stands out for abusive cult status, [b:534cda4f7a] the exploitation of labor [/b:534cda4f7a] ...

If I understand your concerns correctly and completely, you do not see any religious aspect inside of Landmark, but for you the free labor is very offensive.

I can see that volunteering too much time to an organization could cause a person to forsake their families or their "day job". Spending too much time at the race tracks, bar or at work could have the same consequences though too.

With that said, I can also see where someone who is on an emotional high would be a target for such a request by Landmark. Is it their asking that is the root of your suspicions?

I will look more closely at the volunteering aspect of Landmark from now on.

Quote
midonov123

Quote
Myles

Quote

Not to mention that he left "did you do est?" out. <sniff, sniff> We just don't get no respect no more.

I meant no disrespect. What is "est" and how is "est" related to this topic?

???!!!

You don't know about the Landmark/EST connection ??? And you say you have knowledge??? That's nonsense. Educate yourself!

EST : Erhard Seminar Training. Werner Erhard to be more precise, aka Jack Rosenberg, the ex-Scientologist (OT-5) and old car salesman. An expert con-artist, that's what he was to me. EST technology (sic!) was transfered to his brother and renamed Landmark Education. Not a landmark and nothing to do with education. Just a deceptive name.

Miles, WAKE UP!

Please understand that educating myself IS what is behind my question. I never said that I have knowledge. I said that I wanted to ADD knowledge to my experience. All I know of Landmark is what I got from attending the course... and now this site... which is now you.

You brought up "EST" which is not something I have heard of before.

Should I assume that EST is simply the same as Landmark with just a different name? Is EST being renamed the part of Landmark that makes it deceptive for you or did something else change?

PS: my name is spelt with a "y"

Quote
sonnie_dee
Myles, what is the point of your being on this board, to me it comes across as your going to try and get us all to realise we are wrong in our views about the landmark forum. And I get the feeling that you are going to spout the "if you haven't done it you can't really say much about it theory"

Perhaps another example.... do you jump off the cliff to see if you really will get hurt or do you read the warnings and stay at the top? You don't have to experience something to know it is dangerous.

As it is I have experienced landmark and I firmly warn everyone I know off it!

Sonnie Dee, knowing that you did the Forum does add some level of credibility to your point of view. For me, your words will carry further.

With that said, you do NOT need to do, say or read anything to have and form your own opinion... about anything. I'm admittedly biased right now, but I do NOT discredit or dismiss any opinions on this board. I just want to know what they are based on.

If you have any experience whatsoever in the subject matter, your words will carry further. Whether you are reporting something you observed in someone else, or if you are speaking from your own experience, it does make a difference.

I am interested in learning specifically what you experienced. When you warn people off of Landmark, what do you say to them?

Quote
skeptic
And that's the power and the danger of LGATs. Ya just can't think straight after being run through one.

There's a lot of vocabulary being used here that I am not familiar with. Can you please define "LGATs"?

Quote
elena
They "care" about your thoughts to the extent that they can use them against you. That they are ~meaningless~ and your life is ~meaningless~ is one way to make you so depressed or more depressed than you were coming in that you'll be eager to sign up for their stupid snake-oil mind cure.

Ellen

The way I interpreted that the "World is meaningless" routine, is that I have to make everything mean something.

Suppose I am sitting at a dinner party with my friends and one of them has a tone in her voice and says something about the color of my kitchen, "I would have selected a darker color for this kitchen".

I would say to myself, "What did that comment mean?" and then I would make it mean something. It's natural.

"She must not like the color I chose."
Or "She's just jealous of my kitchen."
Or "She thinks I don't have good taste."

Whatever the reason or meaning we assign to it, may not be the actual meaning that a person intended.

I make everything mean something. That is what the "meaningless" routine seemed to suggest to me.

LGAT, which means large group awareness training, that's what groups like Landmark, NXVIM, Lifespring, Sterling, Impact and an assortment of other seminar weekends are frequently called.

Another common title is "mass marathon training."

See [www.culteducation.com]

This covers the common features and problems of such trainings.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Philip Cushman attended an LGAT and found the following things to warn potential participants about.

They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

They lack clearly defined responsibility.

They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.

They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

He felt that the following made them potentially dangerous--

Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change.

Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant.

Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation.

Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, "blaming the victim."

I receive constant complaints from former participants, families and concerned friends that fit and express the above criteria.

Quote
Myles
I am having trouble understanding your logic. All I did was ask you why Landmark is a cult. Your answer here is that just by asking you the question, that is what makes Landmark a cult?

I totally understand the part about not being declared "a cult", but how does asking you what YOU think make it into a cult? My intention in the question was not to create a cult just by asking, but to understand how you identified it as one.

Myles,

I don't expect you or anybody else to understand Landmark's system of logic. It is deliberately meant to be illogical. This way, people must abandon their rational thinking to experience through emotions and feelings only. This is typically New Age and cultish too.

In a previous post, you said you have made an opinion by experimenting the Landmark forum. You even compared Landmark forum to having sex (LOL!). I say the comparison is misleading. Why don't you mention the old bicycle riding example Erhard used to repeat all the time? No. Instead, you have to compare Landmark for what it is: a cult. Then everything makes sense, even the lack of logic. For example, you are being told to stop being righteous even when you know you are! So, why can't you stop being so righteous about Landmark? See the contradiction? This is called "self-reference", like the old "liar paradox", like when I say "believe me when I say that this is not the truth!". Remember similar sentences from the Forum? Why do you think Landmark plants such illogical formulas into their rhetoric?

I resisted enrollment and I didn't do the Forum, but Landmark has deployed many efforts in trying to break me. I was in a relationship for almost a year with a seminar leader, and I've been through all of this before with her and she was backed by the center manager who had me and my family as a target. Although that woman was considered very highly by the Landmark center manager, all I could see was how disoriented she had become, her inner self lost in a blind alley from which she couldn't escape. And it was very sad to see. The same blind alley you seem to be lost in. And that is cultish!

Anyway, I'm tired of all this and I will not tolerate any harassment from you trying to break my spirit. That will not change my knowledge about Landmark being a cult. Just consider this: Landmark say they don't use thought reform technology on people, nor do they use brainwashing technology for whatever that means. However, using their own vocabulary, they use a "technology" that leads to a "transformation" of peoples "mind". So I call it a "mind transformation technology" and that is definitely the mark of a cult.

Why do you keep denying Landmark is a cult? What's wrong about Landmark being a cult? This is nothing illegal, isn't it? And the Bill of Right supports the freedom of association, speech and religion. Of course, it' s not very good for the business to admit that Landmark is a cult, but Scientology isn't afraid to declare itself a religion (although Time magazine calls it "The Cult of Greed"). In that sense, I have more respect for Scientology than for Landmark. Certainly you know about the Scientology-Erhard-EST-Landmark connection, don't you? That speaks for itself, don't you think?

To get complete(!), I will say that I don't think you are a newcomer to this forum. I think you've been here before under another pseudoname. If I'm wrong, it only confirms that all Landmark zealots sound the same, as if they were clones of one another! So how can you be "authentic" when you are conditioned to be compliant with a group? Another cultish paradox. And stop pretending that this is not the truth.