Yes, I understand your concern with people who stayed in and havent been quite clear about it. They went into Marrano mode....and yes, there are no deep friendships with people who stayed. Fortunately, most of the people that I was friends with ended up leaving. The few who did stay now claim they are no longer involved (but I don't fully believe them)

In the early years of our involvement, it was all about the relationship with God. We then moved into the historical routes of Jesus, and turned towards a Jewish approach. (Which follows a lot of scholorship in this area). The elements of the Family and all of that emerged later. Jack and Gary, and the guns, and all of that emerged much later. (it may have been there, but unless you were on the inner inner circle you didnt know about it) I think in that way it may be different than a traditional cult.

Another thing to think about was the times: this was 25 years ago, and people were on all sorts of exploratory paths. From some aspect, this group started out into Jesus at first, then evolved into the Jewish roots of Jesus, and then involved to the Hickman cult. At least that is the way it can be viewed from the perspective of many of us who were members.

My anger is reserved for those who knew better: who knew there was abuse of kids, who knew what kind of games Jack was up to, etc. and did nothing about it.

HI Janet,
I appreciate the study of the OT and the Jewish routes of Jesus. Jesus was Jewish. The OT is part of the Bible. That being said....
Jesus was not an elitest. Jesus was not exclusive. Hickman preached that. Hickman lied.
The truth is that the OT promised a Messiah would come. The promise is/was that the annointed one would come through the line of David and offer reconciliation to ALL humanity. Christ was made manifest so that WHOSOEVER believed on him could be reconciled to the Creator. While it may have been Hickman's desire that a god existed who would separate out of the earth those who were created to be ''better than''.....the Bible never promised that.
The Jesus that Hickman preached...even in the early days...if my memory serves correct(and understand...I was young)...Hickman's Jesus was never available to all humanity. Hickman, even at the beginning, preached a Messiah who was looking for a ''chosen'' ''elite'' ''select'' few.
So from the very beginning Hickman was haughty and arrogant and he preached about a very carnal, Zues-type...exclusive Messiah....
He was wicked from the get-go.
It makes sense that someone like Hickman was a pervert. He perverted the grace of God and twisted the truth about a loving Savior. Instead of a god who loves all his creation and wants to see salvation for all mankind...Hickman believed and preached a god who only cares for his ''chosen''......
In those early days..everyone wanted to be the ''chosen''. Christianity was never about that.

I only was with Jack Hickman when he was preaching to a large group in 1973-83. I was not close to people who were close to Hickman. I did not keep in touch with people after I left. I do not have training in psychiatry. These are substantial limitations to my ability to understand him, and I do not have a satisfactory theological understanding of his impact. I'm not trying to condone, but to understand. I found possible precedents and psychiatric explanations.

Around 1985-90 I read Hervey Cleckley's book, The Mask of Sanity. Cleckley writes about the sociopath/psychopath. The full-blown sociopath is so dysfuctional that he cannot hold a steady job, and is in and out of the psychiatric hospital. There are also partial forms. With great artistry, Cleckley sketches a series of figures, culminating with the sociopath as psychiatrist. The figure sketched has completely fooled some people. The book ends with this partial sociopath/psychopath psychiatrist giving a lecture about.... the personality of the sociopath! The irony!

On p. 33 of the 5th edition (which I copied for my files), Cleckley gives a long footnote. The jumping off point was that exaggerating and falsifying, sometimes unconscious or half-conscious, is often seen in sane people, some of whom are able, intelligent, and highly successful. The footnote recounts a professor of physics who has often regaled acquaintances "with accounts of working his way through university by playing professional ice hockey at night, later setting type on a newspaper for several hours, rising before daylight to stoke tugboats on the waterfront, riding thirty-four miles to a high school to teach one subject and thirty-fours miles back, as well as keeping house in a three-room apartment shared with six aviators and relieving the janitor of the building one hour during each twenty four. All these activities were spoken of as being carried out simultanously and along with full time work at the university.

The same friend once came up from behind while another man and I were commenting on the height of a cliff on which we stood. The hazards of a dive from the position were being idly discussed. The newcomer at once estimated, probably with commendable accuracy, the height, and angle of landing, and all the technicalities of such a dive. He then launched into an astonishing description of a dive he had made in early youth from the bridge 167 feet above the Guadalquiver.

One of the students to whom this excellent scholar lectures stated that it is the custom for each succeeding class to tabulate his adventures and their duration in these pseudo-reminiscences and therefrom compute his age. The top figure so far is 169 years..... He is no part of a psychopath. He is, is fact, a character whose essential traits lie at the opposite extreme. The reminiscences ascribed to him are not told boastfully or for the purpose of shielding himself or of gaining any material end. He is strikingly free of arrogance, kind to a remarkable degree, and altogether worthy of his strong reputation as a good a reliable man."

I hypothesize that Jack Hickman started like the physics professor but changed over time, becoming more like the partial psychopaths/sociopaths analyzed by Cleckley. I do not have a religious/spiritual framework for accounting for such a change, but it appears conceivable from a psychiatric perspective. Some who know more psychiatry could perhaps demonstrate that such a change is highly unlikely, but I have not looked into it.

HI Mennodoc,
I do have very limited understanding of psychiatry from college...I am especially interested in the individual with an antisocial personality disorder aka the sociophath. I sort of believe there is a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. My take on it...if you are interested...... A sociopath has an infantile self-centeredness. Your theory that one sort of...becomes a sociopath ... is interesting.... My understanding of what a sociophath is contradicts that. Perhaps one's self-centeredness becomes more ''apparent'' over time but I do not see how one can 'develop into' a sociopath . You see the sociopath is infnatile in their view of the world. So I don't believe(maybe I'm wrong) but, I don't see how anyone can regress so deeply. It seems more likely that a person who is self-centered to an infantile degree...was always that way.
The sociopath views 'bad' as that which displeases them.
The socipath views 'good' as that which pleases them.
No moral compass. No concern for any other individual. No sympathy. No empathy.
They create their own reality because it feels good. Period. No other reason. They simply care about themselves only.
When did Hickman ever ..... and I mean ever...even at the beginning....when did Hickman ever show a kindness towards any person who didn't somehow...you know...please him.
Hundreds of people at his sermons who he smiled at...hey...they were dropping $$$ in his pocket.
The man couldn't even smile if there wasnt a $$$ in it for him.
Hi. That is how a sociopath is basically defined.

Also..the sociopath is an actor/actress. They do more than speak lies. It is facial expressions. Gestures. Their every move is part of an act. The script? They write it themselves. The audience? You or me. Anyone who they want to ''charm''. These people have charisma. Of course it is hard to sustain the ''act''. This is why a sociopath does not want to spend all day with anyone he is ''charming''. Preaching is a great forum for the sociopath. Hickman was able to ''act'' for a few hours. Then curtain closed, money collected, and home to his ''inner circle'' of friends. The man understand the human psych. He purposely targeted and befriended 'like-minded' members of the audience. His ''inner circle'' was comprised of mostly, self-centered sociopaths. He 'chose' them. They knew they were b.s. ing people. They knew it all along. And they are still doing it. They are active today. It's sick.

I am still reading yes and would love to know what happened. I heard Lynn married Gary Coons? Can anyone verify that?

Four Memorable Youth Activities 30 years later.

I was voluntarily involved in youth activities (my parents were not involved in the Fellowship). I remember these activities as well designed and directed and thought provoking. During 1973-75, I recall the following Patchogue youth activities:

During one Jesus Book class, when the group was in its second year of meeting, each of us was to choose a person present who we thought most and least of various qualities, and to explain before the group our reasons. I chose a person for each of “most responsible” and “least responsible”. I was chosen by one girl as “least loving.” As a teenage boy in front of his peers, especially girls, I was quite embarrassed by this. I was also chosen as “most sensitive” by another fellow. I reconciled these seemingly opposite judgments by supposing that I have the capacity to empathize with others, but I don’t always employ it or show it, especially towards the opposite sex.

On another occasion the Patchogue youth went to the house in Southold. Each of us was paired, a blindfolded person with another who was responsible for them. This was probably intended to build trust. As a teenage boy I was very conscious of being paired with a girl—but I cannot recall which of us wore the blindfold, or of doing anything in particular except eating.

Another activity on another occasion was designed to make the experience of slavery more immediate. Each of us was paired, master with slave. I was a slave paired with a fellow stronger than me. I sized up the situation and bent the rules somewhat by escaping before my master got outside to start the game. I hid and tried to think of a plan of action. This gave me some feeling of confidence that I could take care of myself, although I did not come up with any plan. There was discussion after the exercise.

In 1980 or 81, I was out of college, and in a young adult “tribe”. One summer we played capture the flag, an activity which reflected a somewhat military or survivalist theme. My tribe leader devised a route for us to take through thick brush to reach the flag without detection. I was pretty sure the route was so difficult that we could not complete it before the game ended. But I held my tongue. It turned out as I expected. This was one instance of the familiar dilemma of how to influence leadership decisions when they are unwise.

I remember all those activities.
Rating one another. We learned to replace God's judments with ''self'' judging. Even in a court of law man does not rate one anothers ''heart''. People may rate eachother in areas such as speed. agility, height, beauty....
but Hickman had us rate eachother's hearts. Who is ''most loving''....????? Only God knows that. But Hickman's plan from the beginning was to give God's judments a back seat. This would take away the moral compass that a teenager and young adult might have. He tricked people. He said ''be your own judge...be your own moral compass....be self-righteous''.....then...after God was pushed to the side...he knew it wouldn't last. He knew young people crave guidance.
That's when that freak would ''step in'' as a god.

Thanks for your memories and analysis, Sally. I'd appreciate what you or others have to contribute further. My memory was not that the most/least judments in my Jesus book class had any reference to Jack Hickman. Perhaps different time periods or different implementation by the class teacher?

The most/least judments of the class had no ''apparant'' or ''initial'' reference to Jack Hickman. Not at all. It was ''self''. The teaching was that man, humans, people, ''us'', cult members were to judge. Don't you get it? Hickman was teaching the youth to behave in a self righteous way.
OK...I'm a cult member. I'm being ''taught'' to judge the hearts and minds of others.
OK listen....people should NOT be ''judging'' one another's hearts and minds. When we use our own ''selves'' to judge the hearts of others..we are becoming ''self'' righteous.
We should trust a Universal Creator aka God. We should rely upon the judgments of a Universal Creator aka God. So if someone steals....that's wrong and they should be judged according to society's laws. But if I ''think'' someone has an unloving heart....that's stupid...ridiculous...none of my busines...it is God's domain ...
The heart and mind and thoughts of other humans is none of my business.
Brainwashing is subtle. It starts by removing an individual's moral compass. When Hickman had those activities going on it was step #1. He was encouraging young people to erase a moral compass that the Bible had been teaching. The Bible teaches us not to use our own judgments....we can ''refer to'' God's judgments....you know...don't steal or murder or lie etc. etc.....
Hickman was subtle. Subtle and wicked. From the onset he knew what he wanted...pre-meditated...wicked pedophile.