Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Is this a Cult? *UPDATED*

It's been several days since I've posted-- my mind and time has been occupied with a situation that I am at a loss as to how (if even how) I should respond. In a nutshell, the 18-year-old daughter of some friends has decided to "join" a group known as Smith's Friends. I've been able to find a little bit on the internet about the group. On the surface, they sound like a "christian group"--they refer to themselves as The Christian Church (no association with the Restoration Movement churches, some having the same "name"). But some of the teachings I've read about don't ring true with my understanding of Scripture. Here are some links that I've read:

Some of the teachings (according to one website) are that Jesus was not God and He sinned unconsciously when He was on the earth. The site also claims the group teaches that Christ died for His own sins, as well as the sins of man. Current day leader, Sigurd Bratlie's teachings are accepted by Smith's Friends as infallible.

Several things concern me about this situation (NOTE: I'm speaking from information I've been told by the parents and close friends of the family). First, is how quickly the group was able to convince this girl to join them-- telling her, in essence, that the church she belonged to was not a true church and the things she had been taught by the church and her parents were not right. Second, they convinced the girl to move into their home, out of her dorm where she recently began attending college on a full scholarship. This girl is VERY intelligent-- she graduated at the top of her class; the scholarship was to a well known, private university. Yet, somehow...

The most disturbing thing to me is that the person that lulled her into this group is one that should be a trusted individual in our community. It appears that he has been "grooming" this girl for some time by giving her literature, etc. to help indoctrinate her. I spoke with another parent who said their son brought home some of the literature; that boy did not join the group.

The parents are devastated. Please pray for John and Joanie. Also pray that their daughter will have her eyes opened to this deception.

UPDATE 08-21-09 : Updated broken or dead links

1,940 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1201 – 1400 of 1940   Newer›   Newest»
john said...

PASTOR X STORY continued:
His "ministry" in the SF was frutiful and he was lauded. Then he slowly began encountering the "deeper" currents in SF. Pentecostal pastors depend on their flocks and tithes to survive. X had lived thus and had not equipped himself to have a job. So he "lived off" those who were generous to him. Now SF began pressuring him to find a job so that he would not need to get monetary help from others. SF people tried to train him to be a tailor (example of Bratlie) so he could earn a living. It was not his cup of tea. But with this pressure on him he returned to his base in the hilly estate region and began teaching English. The earnings were still meagre and he needed help.
Then he desired to marry and in this regard too he encountered SF theories about marriage and other pressures. On the one hand, he was mocked for being unable to marry. On the other, there was no woman in SF willing to marry him (SF believes that the BEST THING is to marry only within SF). X finallly found a woman from a Pentecostal church to marry, a good believing Christian woman who followed him into SF. The word was spread that his example was not good.
Now, saddled with a family and he had a child soon enough, he found the going tougher in life with his meagre earnings. Some brothers kept helping him but the pressures with SF given this group's rigid teachings etc kept piling up. Slowly, he discovered that SF did not consider him or his ways GOOD ENOUGH TO MEET THEIR EXTREME STANDARDS. As he began chafing under such pressures, things got worse for him. SF leaders began undermining him and his work by way of whisperings about how "he was not a GOOD BROTHER". These whisperings reached him and made him sad and unhappy. When he complained, he was told DO NOT BE OFFENDED - BE CRUCIFIED!
To cut a long story short, he was pushed steadily outside the flock and another "brother" replaced him. Once outside, he had none left to help him. He was cut off from SF and other Christians. He continues to struggle in a job to look after his family all alone, his spiritual calling and work destroyed through his journey with the SF.
If he "survives" it is as a lonely Christian, his mind messed up by SF doctrines, intense experiences of fellowship left behind, anxieties about a future and his wife and children. For the SF, all this signs of "how things go bad with those who leave the brotherhood". But the reality is that Jesus is with him in the sufferings imposed upon him by the "brotherhood" which has judged him to be "not humble enough". The SF yardstick is "if one is humble enough one will remain in the brotherhood no matter how one is treated". (ends)

Harold said...

Sophie: Your assumption is correct. When I said she was at ‘church’, that was his home.

I was also taken by your evaluation of the “conscience theory” and the license to sin. I think you are right on. We all as humans often try to find some way to justify our sinful nature.

John: I am glad to see that you are still here and things haven’t “gone bad for you”. Your story has several interesting components to it. First of all when the SF people try to train X as a tailor and it didn’t work for him, I am sure that their response is that they were trying to be helpful. It isn’t their fault that he didn’t measure up.

The other thing about this story is that it illustrates how coercive groups deal with members who don’t conform. They want to remake people into their image. My guess is that X did not give up ALL of his own opinions and interests. He therefore was labeled as “not good enough” and eventually ostracized from the group.

Of course SF will take the position that he just didn’t have a “calling” and God removed him from the “true and only church” in order to purify the church. All of this is worked out so subtly and explained away so easily by the leadership that most members are not aware of the real agenda. Of course they have been conditioned not to ask too many questions of their own so that they don’t end up outside like X.

InterestedObserver said...

Hi. I've followed this blog off and on for a while, but not posted myself until now. I've taken some time to catch up with the last few weeks of postings. Fascinating exchanges.

I am a rather "mainstream" evangelical Christian with a lifelong interest in theology, church polity, etc. I first heard of Smith's Friends a few years ago through some friends who were very unpleasantly impacted by that group.

Over the years, I've encountered people from various groups that are often called "cults." I've spent time chatting with Mormons, for example, and known some ex-Mormons, too. I also spent a lot of time a few years ago in discussions with a coworker who belongs to the "General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn." They refuse all medical treatment for themselves and their children. Thus, they make the news once in a while when a kid dies from some very treatable ailment. They are pretty close-knit and clannish, with a distinct "us versus them" mentality. I would try very hard to talk sense to the guy about how God wouldn't frown on taking aspirin or antibiotics, but he would have none of it.

Bottom line, I've run into some pretty messed-up religious thought, but from where I sit, nothing seems to hold a candle to what I've read and heard regarding Smith's Friends and the mind-blowingly negative emotional carnage they seem to visit on those who get caught up in their "program" and then wash out, or on the non-Smith's Friends family members of those who are still in it.

In contrast, my ex-Mormon friends have never testified to the kind of emotional torment I read about in this blog. And my Firstborn buddy, while we engaged in some lively debates, never ever treated me with the kind of arrogant disdain that characterizes many of the Smith's Friend's defenders.

How is it that Smith's Friends has come to be characterized by such "negative energy?"

john said...

Harold: Am around but extremely busy. Have pointed out this blog to several international evangelical friends and leaders who are also now watching and silently looking deeper at the SF and its modes of operation
Yes, Pastor X DID NOT give up ALL his opinions and views and become a slave of SF and had to pay the price.
Sophie: An example of how this "conscience" business works:
A leader of the church in India who is also a director of the gigantic conference centre being built in India keeps coming to oversee the work at the centre in Kerala.
His aged father and mother live a few hundred kilometres away in Kerala. But he is always "lying" about the whereabouts of himself, his wife and children (the grandchildren of his parents) who often accompany them on this work to his parents. This is not done in words but by keeping them in the dark about their being in Kerala itself. He cautions others in the 'church' who know his parents not to let them know that he is just a few hundred km away. His parents are thus given the "impression" that he is hardly there in Kerala 'most of the time' when he is 'actually" just a few hundred km away from his parents most of the time "working for the church".
The truth is that he has "cut off" his parents from his family. His parents of course belong to the "harlot" church!
However, for him this sort of "lying" is okay. His conscience does not trouble him. His 'example' also forces others in the "church" to be "one" with him in his "lying" or "giving a false impression" to his parents about his whereabouts. He feels both his conscience and his "God" justify him in these actions.
This is the "pattern of thinking" of SF members most of the time because of the confusing teachings about "separation" and "holiness" that have been imparted and make them to see "others" as "harlots" or "sinners from whom to be separate" and as "evil people of the world".
InterestedObserver: Welcome. People do not know SF because SF guards against people who are not brainwashed from penetrating their sheepfold. All newcomers are always watched and tested and not trusted till they conform to the SF codes. It is interesting that you have encountered those who have been battered by SF. Would it be possible for you to encourage them to share their stories here? My experience is that most of them have been battered so badly and their will and spirit crushed so much that they do not even want to speak of their sufferings to others and want to just get on with whatever life they are left with. If they spoke up, others would be saved from their fate and they would also experience a healing catharsis.

InterestedObserver said...

john: As I indicated in my previous post, I have never before encountered a group as extremely controlling/brainwashing as SF seems to be. The emotional toll they have taken on Christian families around the world is breathtaking. I really appreciate the information you have provided on this blog. Regarding my SF-impacted friends, their story has already been shared here by others. It is because of them that I became aware of this blog.

Harold said...

John: I appreciate your stories because they validate those observations of the local SF group and illustrates that this is not an isolated group within SF. While there are cases of abusive groups within other churches that have nothing to do with that particular denomination or congregation, it seems to be more widespread within SF.

We are all guilty of trying to minimize our sins. Some speak of “little white lies” or don’t view ‘insignificant’ deceptions as a big deal. I believe that in God’s economy He makes no distinction between “little white lies” and murder. They are all sin and separate us from Him. The man from Kerala is just as sinful and needs a Savior just as much as Jeffrey Lundgren whom Sophie spoke about.

This man may think he is getting away with his lies but chances are his parents know that he is deceiving them. Parents can usually tell when their children are trying to deceive them. It doesn’t matter if they are 3 or 30. And the thing that really breaks the heart of good moral parents is to find out that their children are not honest and trustworthy. Trust is such a fragile thing. It is something that can be broken in an instant but takes some time to earn. His parents may not say anything, and pretend that they not aware of his deceptions but I would bet that they know that he is not being honest with them. And even if he was able to completely deceive his parents, he can’t deceive an omnipotent God, the ultimate judge.

I had a conversation with a former cult member some years ago. He spent some 28 years involved with the group. One of the things that he talked about was how regretful he was for how he treated his parents during that time and how he was working hard to restore that relationship. I’m sure that had a lot to do with regaining some of that lost trust by being open, honest, and asking for forgiveness from both his parents and God.

In the case here, the girl moved into the home of this school teacher (AKA SF church leader). She also had a full scholarship to the university which provided a dorm room. Along the line of John’s story, she could say that she lived in the dorm because she did have a dorm room. However she rarely ever stayed there. She may have slept there occasionally during the week but most of the time she was commuting to and from his home. The truth is that she really didn’t “live” in the dorm. This charade of keeping the dorm room but living somewhere else is just as much a lie and just as sinful in God’s eyes as anything else.

Not only is this deceptive and a lie, it is also very selfish. There may be some other student that needs or wants a dorm room and is denied that opportunity. This is also stealing from the university because that student may not have a scholarship and would pay the university for that room.

When children go to our church they learn to be honest, and moral people according to Biblical principles. It seems that when children attend this SF church they learn to lie, cheat and steal. That kind of behavior that has been learned from this SF church is one of the things causes her parents pain. She described this group to her parents as just more serious Christians. Really?!?!

Harold said...

InterestedObserver: I appreciate your comments. I myself have friends who are Jehovah Witnesses and, while we have our differences theologically they have always been very honest and open people. They don’t seem to exhibit this kind of arrogant deception and hatred towards others or as you said “negative energy”.

I believe that the negative energy is a result of the fear that has been instilled in their members. Fear of the truth in scripture, fear of not being perfect, and fear of not living up to the rules of SF leaders or God. Fear is a very powerful control mechanism for groups like this.

People will react differently to fear. Some will withdraw into isolation and try to bury their heads in the sand so they don’t have to deal with it. Others could react with violence. Either way it’s negative energy.

This is in some way like the effects of long term institutionalization in prison. The walls are first used to keep prisoners inside. After time, some inmates can begin to see the walls as safety and protection. They can become comfortable within a world where they have many decisions made for them and become afraid of the responsibility that comes with the freedom to make those decisions for themselves.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410624_PyschologicalImpact.pdf

I think this may be, in some small way, how people who are indoctrinated completely in groups like SF might view the outside world. There have been numerous comments from ex SF people on this blog to show that they are not really free to really make some decisions for themselves about who they are friends with, what kind of job they have, where they live, who they marry and many other choices that God intended us to make for ourselves.

john said...

InterestedObserver: Thank you, but more stories you know will help this witness. So do contribute if your SF-impacted friends feel free enough to tell their stories through you perhaps.
Harold: Some points I might have missed out earlier. If you read Kare Smith's book "Shepherd and Prophet", you will find that the people hounded out of the "true church" fell into certain categories:
1. Those who believe in Jesus deity while on earth and those who experienced his uplifting power because of his "grace" (unmerited favor)and were not ashamed to confess their faith. The idea is to keep all such Christians outside the SF because such Christians are "the harlot". If you confess His deity while He was on earth, you are a threat to the "ideology" of SF that Jesus was only a man who "became God" just as Hindus believe about many of their god-men like Sai Baba etc.
2. Those who questioned certain practices within the "true church" - for instance the need for all the "sheep" to be totally in obedience to the leadership and what is written in JO Smith's letters. These letters are constantly quoted in meetings and used to "judge" people in "crisis" situations in the group, for instance when a group is nearing a split etc and have to hold things together or "expel" those falling out of favor. In India, I am told, when a crisis situation arose in Bangalore Arild Tombre held a meeting where no word of God was referred to but only seven or eight letters by Smith as guidelines/orders. This led the "split-away" group to harden its position against SF. The trick they use against members who question the "ideology" of Smith is to put up Brunstad and JO Smith's letters as a "rock of offence" for such people to stumble upon. In other words, they test members to see if they are loyal to Brunstad and JO Smith's writings and if they are not then they are watched by Big Brothers and sooner or later confronted with the choice of having to conform or be persecuted.
3. Those who do not recognise Brunstad as New Jerusalem or the final "pilgrim centre" and who might crack jokes about or question the blind belief of the SF members pertaining to the "golden calf" of Brunstad as the centre of the universe and the only place from which the "word of God" is sent out to the earth.
4. Those who do not believe the "fear of God" a peculiar expression used by SF leaders to control the flock. This is emphasised by spreading stories about those who questioned SF and then became sick or paralysed or get cancer(example, the paralysis of Bekkevold)and such diseases because they left the "fear of God" to criticise SF. In India too, there is the example of a leader who helped "build the church" in Dubai but "rebelled" later and then was struck down with cancer. This was pointed out as God's vengeance on him for questioning SF. This year, after surgery etc he "repented" and SF received him back as a "lost sheep" and held a feast for him. He died a while later. SF believes he is in the Bride having been "chastised" for losing "fear of God" (euphemism for fear of SF) and repenting and returned. The point is that SF hands out certificates of both demerit and merit to its "sheep" and rejects or confirms those who are in the Bride!!!!!!!!!!! The benchmark for being a true Christian is whether you belong to SF or not. If not, YOU ARE A HARLOT!
5. Those who are not regular in meetings and who do not contribute to the financial kingdom of Kare Smith and other directors of the many SF-controlled business network.

Sophie said...

On Dec. 2, John said: “However, for him this sort of "lying" is okay. His conscience does not trouble him. His 'example' also forces others in the "church" to be "one" with him in his "lying" or "giving a false impression" to his parents about his whereabouts. He feels both his conscience and his "God" justify him in these actions.
This is the "pattern of thinking" of SF members most of the time because of the confusing teachings about "separation" and "holiness" that have been imparted and make them to see "others" as "harlots" or "sinners from whom to be separate" and as "evil people of the world".”

A recent magazine article about Muslim jihadist terrorism against the U.S. reported, “Before the shooting, Hasan reportedly gave away his possessions, appeared (uncharacteristically) in Muslim religious garb, and visited a strip club, an activity strictly forbidden to devout Muslims, but typical of those about to become shaheed-martyrs in the cause of jihad. Some of the 9/11 hijackers stopped in to similar joints before their deadly mission: According to jihadist teaching, the shaheed are the only Muslims granted immediate forgiveness of all sins, as well as direct entry into jannah (paradise), so there is no reason not to indulge in a little earthly pleasure before the trip.”

It is interesting that some groups will claim to be or believe certain things, yet when it beneficial to them, it is acceptable to do the opposite of their teachings. The aforementioned group obviously believes it is a sin to visit strip clubs, yet finds it acceptable in certain circumstances (like prior to committing a deadly mission to outsiders). The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Does God put conditions on when it is acceptable to sin?

The Bible makes it clear that God defines lying as a sin, yet groups like SF, who claim to be Christian, obviously view lying to be acceptable when the circumstances are beneficial to them (like when dealing with those who are not part of SF). Proverbs 4:24, 6:16-19, Prov.26:28, Ps.32:18, Prov.14:5,8, Eph.4:25.

Telling or portraying something that isn’t entirely true, based on facts alone as they really happened, or as they really are, putting one’s own spin and opinions on events, trying to make things appear something other than what they really are is a lie no matter which way it is sliced. It is yoke of deceit placed upon one by satan when one’s ‘conscience does not trouble him’. What really matters and what the Omniscient God sees are the actual events or facts that are true, what really happened or what really took place. That’s why Christians are to live our lives guided by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word, not necessarily by ‘my own conscience’. If what we are taught is based on misinformation (scripture that has been either ignored, taken out of context, twisted, or misinterpreted) – things that are against God’s precepts, then our conscience can be ‘out of kilter’ and cannot be trusted.

Prov. 14:12: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”

1 Timothy 5:24-25: “The sins of some men are obvious; reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden.”

Sophie said...

If one claims to be a Christian (which SF does), whether one believes that Jesus is peccable or impeccable, it then stands to reason that one would also believe it important to obey God’s Word.

In Jn 14:15-21, Jesus says, “If you love Me, you will do what I command. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever – the Spirit of Truth. The world (that refers to lost souls/ those who have not accepted Him as their Savior) cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor know Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves Me. He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and show Myself to him.”

And in verse 23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father who sent Me.”

Jesus says in more than one place that as His followers, disciples, children, we are to obey God. God communicates to us through His Word, which makes it clear that lying is a sin. So, to lie is disobedience to God, which is indicative of the condition of our heart and our love for Jesus.

Recently, in making a comparison between Tiger Woods and our current president, Rush Limbaugh made a comment about how the two are trying to present an image of what they want the public to believe about them, but isn’t true. They both are pretending to be something they’re not. Sometimes we can fool others; we can even try to fool ourselves for a time. But, we can never fool the Omniscient and Almighty God. He knows if we’re truthful or lying and He knows the condition of our heart. He knows how we treat others which is very important to God or He wouldn’t have devoted so much scripture to that topic.

just me said...

Hello everyone , I am new here and i seen this blog a like a year ago , I check once and a while , I know the smiths friend or brunstad church whatever you want to call it, I have my own experience that I will share in a few days. Right now I was going to bed . Good night all

just me said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
just me said...

OK , I am back. I cannot write all the last 10 years of my experience of SF, right now I am very fustrated at life and at some people that I had strusted , so I will try to just be honest with what i have to say.

One things that I have notice with SF church is how much it change over the years, when i have met them 12 years ago, they seem to be very diferent from all the other church, first of all girls always had dress, and no one had any television in their living room , most people did not have any tv, but the one who had them , had it somewhere hidden, I remember some brother saying about other church that , they only try to get lots of people in there church and they should not have all those big building that cost alot of money , remember to that church should not have any name other then just being christian, I felt like this was the place I wanted to be.


Well now 12 years later , things change so much , they have brunstad church as a name , a big conference center in brunstad and most people have tv and girl can weir pants , lol its not a big deal , I dont see it like its bad, the only thing i found confusing in all this , how can the real church be a certain way and talk againts certain things and then years later be completely diffenrent , most people there are very good people. But from what I notice , if your not from that church with your familly , you will feel not part of it, thats how I felt , but the reason why I stayed that long it was to fixed my mariage and thought they could help me , but now after 10 years , I see that it just got worst then was it was. I have 4 kids that , I did not see for about 4 months , I miss them alot , but because of work I had to move , my ex wife think I could have live with little pay check and support 4kids and her , then try to pay my rent somewhere else because we are seperated, certain people in that church dont see reality or dont want to see it, but after that I got myself in deep trouble like I am now , they all vanish lol, its ok cause its just me.

john said...

Dear JustMe: It breaks my heart to think of how you were deceived too. Yes, most people I know began the way you did with SF and then suddenly saw the deception. And it has hurt everyone just like you. Only the thoroughly brainwashed ones remain loyal to SF and blindly believe their 'prophets'.
Most people, like you, were very impressed by the claim that one could overcome all sin and be "sinless" consciously daily.
They followed that ambition and joined the SF to be in the "church" with "no name other than Jesus' name", to be in the pure Bride.
Then the ones who had eyes slowly discovered the 'double standards' in the 'church'. They discovered that the leaders claimed that at one time God spoken one way and that more recently God speaks differently. Different rules by the same God for different times!!!
There were one set of rules and regulations while Bratlie and the older leaders were there - long skirts and long hair for girls, no pants, no TV, no alcohol, no business prospects, etc.
Then suddenly Kare Smith appeared and began saying God had taught him differently from J O Smith and Bratlie etc - that now the girls could wear pants, work in secular jobs, that brothers could make money and that the "church with no name other than that of Jesus" should have a name - DKM - and become a business empire beginning with Kare's own businesses which, it is alleged, "church" money fuels.
The 'old' SF hated the older harlot churches because they bought and sold and built big buildings and showed off their wealth. But Kare Smith and his business "brothers" - Bernt Aksel, Bjorn Nillsen, Bernt Stadven, Gunnar Gangso, etc - decided that Brunstad would become a great rich city (Babylon - city of commerce and merchants) and they call it falsely 'New Heaven' and 'New Jerusalem'. Money and control and power over souls is Brunstad's key business now. The Harlot has come into being again.
So Kare and his business brothers began prophesying to everyone to pay all their money to build this "vision" of greatness and richness and how the "brothers" must take all the money of the Gentiles and become rich because "God has decreed this".
So the money-making racket began and the "sheep" have been "well shorn" and continue to be "well shorn" including the SF youth and children's pocket money.
All of this Smith, Bratlie, Aksel J Smith, Aslaksen, etc had warned against and had condemned in all the harlot churches. It is funny how SF has become exactly like the Harlot it condemned.
If you ask Kare Smith or the other leaders about how they can collect so much money, the reply will be that the people in the church have to "pay for the Word of God they get through their prophets" (but they condemn the TV evangelists and God Channel who collect money just like them) and "we have built a heaven on earth - Brunstad". In 2004, when New Brunstad was inaugurated, it is said Kare Smith boasted openly - "Jesus fed 5000 but we have fed 12000" - when they had the opening feast.
Poor people! When this earthly kingdom is dissolved and is destroyed liked the temple in Jerusalem, the sheep will suddenly discover that, as has happened in Christian history often, the 'prophets' and 'directors' who grabbed all the money and bought up real estate across the world would have disappeared with the sheep's money. That day is not to far away.
The sheep own nothing and are in debt but the directors of the 20-odd companies run by the big shots in Brunstad are forever safe. In 2004 Kare Smith is reported to have said: "If they will not let us live here in peace, we will sell all this and move to a country that welcomes us." Of course, only those who OWN Brunstad and the other real estate and other companies linked to SF would be able to escape with the money, but not the sheep!!

john said...

JustMe wrote: "Certain people in that church dont see reality or dont want to see it, but after that I got myself in deep trouble like I am now, they all vanish ..."
Yes, I can understand how you feel. Across the world, one can realise who a true disciple of Jesus is because such disciples help those who are in deep trouble. In SF, it works the other way around. If you are in trouble, then you will be cast out. Because SF believes that those who are "sinners" are the ones who are in deep trouble. And SF believes in separation from sinners.
On the other hand, if people like JustMe who are in deep trouble and very vulnerable emotionally or financially,then SF leaders try to bring such people into total obedience and control to the group mind. If they succumb to that kind of subservience, then they are sometimes helped but the person would have lost his or her soul to the SF.
Further, I wonder if SF played a role in separating JustMe and his wife. SF enjoys bringing about separation in families so long as some one become bound to the group. For instance, if a father goes away from the group, SF members try to convince the wife and children to not support the father but to remain with SF. There are many families in which this sort of separation has been encouraged and engineered by SF leaders in the past and close present too.
So, dear JustMe, would you like to tell us whether my instinct is right.
Has SF played a role in separating your family from you?

just me said...

Well one thing for sure before I have kids and really be involve in the SF, my mariage was already not working, 2 weeks before our mariage , the pastor that maried us wanted us to put it off and try to get help first , but my wife freak out and did not want to call it quit, I did not know what to do , but anyway, I felt sorry for her and I still got maried, but after a year of fighting and arguing I left that pentocostal church , some people from SF start to be around me and my wife more then she left that church too. We started to have more fellowship with some SF people , I was 10 hour drive from the closest church , so some people from there move to where I live, try to help up for years but our mariage was never going to work. It would be very long explain in detail right now but to make it short, they try to keep our mariage together , and then we end up with a child , thats was kind of to late for me to leave her , I could not imagine how I could not have my kids live with both parents, anyway after a few years we had 3 kids , we got seperated my wife move 10 hours away to that church , I had to go bankrupt cause , I could not suport to be paying for a house and all the bills by myself since my wife was not going to work. Then I quit a very good job to move closer to my kids, me and my wife got back together then end up with another kid. I really give my best to work my mariage out , I even went to counseling and try whatever I could do, but nothing was working out. One thing I have heard alot from certain people is that testimony of and older brother that is wife was a witch and he still stay faithfull to GOD , the church and is wife. Well , I have try but I could not be with that witch of mine. I hated my job and there is not much work for me over there and I had to find a job far away from my kids to be able to suport me and my kids and wife cause she probably wont work for longtime.I am not trying to blame SF for all this , I had my own fault with my mariage but where I am fustrated , for about 10 years , when some of them would try to give me hope I would always said to them that if it dont work. One day I will be the one suffering and my kids too, right now some of them probably think my kids is at the best place in the world in that church , but I dont think that GOD let me have kids and not be able to be their father, but anyway juts another thing, when I was with my wife last few month with seperated , I told her how much I hate my job and need to find something somewhere elses but she always said she would never move somewhere else so, it was up to me to work in a place that made me miserable and stay with a women that made me miserable for 10 years , I dont really know what to say anymore , I will tell more and more as I get to chat on this blog , thanks for listenen.

john said...

JustMe wrote: "my wife move 10 hours away to that church" and "right now some of them probably think my kids is at the best place in the world in that church".
Dear JustMe: I think many on this blog do understand you and your sufferings as you share your testimony with us. I appreciate that you do not blame all SF members for your troubles and can even see the good in some of them. I also appreciate that you can see your own faults and helplessness in dealing with the situation of your life.
However, beyond that, this seems to be another typical SF operation.
1. They (SF) try to help, they have "good intentions. But it is always with the ulterior motive of the people who are "helped" being and becoming entirely locked into SF's cultish way of life.
2. The proof lies in how the wife and kids have ultimately been separated (not just because of problems between husband and wife) into SF.
This is exactly what SF aims at - that even if the whole family cannot be trapped, at least some must be trapped even if the family itself is destroyed in the process.
This is also proven by the fact that the "wife" will not move anyplace away from the SF church she is locked into, even if the husband tries his best to be part of the "family".
By the way, recently there has been some information about a particular SF church in the USA slowly attempting to do a similar job with another family in which wife and husband are estranged to an extent.
In this case too, the SF or rather some SF leaders are tempting the wife to move with her kids from one part of the USA abandoning her husband to be "one with the Body of Christ". One has to wait and see if the SF succeeds in this because in this case the husband is not exactly unintelligent and knows how to counter these moves by SF to destroy his family and separate his wife and son permanently from him by getting them to move hundreds of kilometres to their "church".
JustMe, do tell us more about your feelings and we can pray for you and your family. God and our Lord and Saviour Jesus can help you but not the SF. It must be very hard when you find that your children are "stolen" from you.
And yes, it was Elias Aslaksen who called his wife a "witch" and then testified as to how he was able to live with a "witch"!!!
The SF leadership encourages men to see their wives as "witches" if they do not adhere to what SF teaches. It is interesting that you have brought this up JustMe. There are texts pertaining to this sort of gender bias in Aslaksen's book "Last Messages".

just me said...

You seem to know them very good John , how do you know that church that much , maybe you did explain how you know them earlyer on this blog , but there is so many thing writtend that I did not go trought it all.

And about what you said about witch that it come from Elias Aslaksen book , thats not the example some people have told me about, it was more about this old guys that is still in the church to this day and is wife is very hard on him, but either way it dont matter, what it was.

I have no problem with SF, I am just fustrated that they try to say they have the truth and live the truth and then they dont have any kinda help , I know I was not an easy person , but I did not ask to be born in the ruins familly I was born , I never been part of christianity , I did not have a clue about christian and the bible, my whole young life I just believe that one day GOD will help me with my life.

When I turn 20 , things start to happend for me to know more about GOD , know is word and try to become what he wanted me to be,I have change my life completely, went away from the world , my old friend and try to become what GOD wanted me to be. I use to drink alot before all that , and was really unhappy, but then i stop drinking , I never drank for 6 years but one years after I got myself into that crazy mariage , I started to drink, cause I felt hopeless , the pastor that maried us could not help us, its very hard to explain in detail in here, but anyway , the things that I dont understand about church any church or pastor or leaders , its that I was lost and need some help but I got more lost after I have met with church people , after I got married , I could have just got seperated and go on with my life , but no some people had to try to help me fix an mariage that was not able to be fix. I told some of the people that it would be better to get seperated now before I have some kids and then it would be more trouble , but no they just say I have to trust in GOD and things will go better, but what if GOD was trying to tell me to just make my own life and not stay with my wife, because before we get married , I am pretty sure that GOD was warning me not to get married, but anyway my wife she always listen to the brother to SF church , she never even read the bible , she just goes with what its in the church , she wanted the same life as the people there , like having lots of kids, before we have any kids , when I wanted to leave her , it seem like she just could not let me go and she was trying everything to keep me there, but now I have 4 young kids , I am not worth anything. If I want to go see my kids I have to pay for aiplane tickets , motel to rent and car to rent, how can i pay all that , pay my rent and send her money to be able to make a living for my kids. I just wanted to stay with them for christmas and would not have bother her , I would have stay on the couch or in my oldest daughter room , but no my wife wont let me , she probably think I should call someone from that church to get a place to live, why would I do that , I was there all summer and its been 4 months I am gone from there, I never hear nothing from anyone from there, why because some of them are either hippocrits or they just think I am full of problem, its ok , I will accept it , but I dont understand how people would say to some other people , and ask how I am and that they miss me , say that to my wife or some friend but I never hear from them , anyway I need to stop right now cause this gets me really fustrated, only thing I would love right now its to be with my kids , and I just cant , I am not rich or have any familly like most people have there. Thanks for listening

Sophie said...

Just me: Thank you for posting. It appears you are not the only one who has been affected by this group. As we’ve seen with other testimonies posted here, the hypocrisy among this group is astounding. They claim to be Christian yet continue to deliberately hurt others by intentionally separating family members and destroying familial relationships. Your damaged relationship may have begun before you and your wife were exposed to SF teaching. However, there has been more than enough testimony on here to prove that SF deliberately separates families. It has also been demonstrated that they lie, threaten, deceive, manipulate, coerce, and use people.

They also impose ‘man-made rules’ upon the members in order to control them. Your post isn’t the first testifying about some of these ‘man-made rules’ concerning television and what people can or cannot wear. The Bible doesn’t say anything about things such as televisions, so where do rules such as these come from? The Bible does not say women can’t wear anything but dresses. 1 Timothy 2:9 says, “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” That leaves a great deal of room for variety and personal freedom of style and opinion (which is given us by God) while dressing MODESTLY.

As I’ve said before, according to 1 Timothy 2:5, our only mediator should be Jesus Christ…not a human being telling us what we should wear, what we can and cannot do, where we can and cannot go, whom we should or should not marry, where we should work, what profession we should choose, where we should live, what type of car we should drive, who our friends should be, and the list goes on and on…

1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time.”

Hebrews 12:24 also refers to ‘Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant’.

Hebrews 12:2, “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

These verses don’t say that we need another human being as our mediator or for us to ‘fix our eyes’ on another human being.

You mentioned, “right now I am very frustrated at life and at some people that I had trusted, so I will try to just be honest with what i have to say.”

When we put our hope and/or trust in human beings, it can definitely leave us frustrated because people are imperfect, human beings, and ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’. One thing that NEVER changes is God and His Word. Culture changes, styles change, technology changes, and time changes. But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is and always has been a sin to lie, cheat, steal, separate loved ones, covet, use profane language, use our bodies for sexual perversion, hate others. Sin separates us from God, just like SF separates people from their loved ones. But, Jesus paid the ultimate price in order to reconcile us to God.

Church members may change buildings, music styles, outreach programs, missions’ projects, etc. in an attempt to be more effective at reaching lost souls. But, when a group criticizes ‘other churches’ and then do exactly what they were criticizing ‘the others’ for doing is pure hypocrisy. (I remember some brother saying about other church that, they only try to get lots of people in there church and they should not have all those big building that cost alot of money) (Well now 12 years later , things change so much , they have brunstad church as a name , a big conference center in brunstad)and most people have tv) (and no one had any television in their living room , most people did not have any tv, but the one who had them , had it somewhere hidden)

Sophie said...

John, you said, “By the way, recently there has been some information about a particular SF church in the USA slowly attempting to do a similar job with another family in which wife and husband are estranged to an extent.”

It has been made very obvious that separating family members is typical of SF and their twisted teachings. Remember this behavior is what got this blog started in the first place. A teacher who belongs to SF deliberately separated one of his students from her family by moving her into his home and intentionally isolated her from her own Christian family who was at one time very close. I believe that is why Keith asked the original question, “Is this a cult?” This is typical cultish behavior and satanic in nature. Jesus Christ came to reconcile people to God and to each other. Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy. Destroying relationships between family members is pleasing to the one who came to ‘destroy’.

2 Corinthians 5:18 says, “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

Harold said, “She described this group to her parents as just more serious Christians.”

Justme said, “I felt like this was the place I wanted to be.”

“but anyway my wife she always listen to the brother to SF church , she never even read the bible , she just goes with what its in the church , she wanted the same life as the people there , like having lots of kids”

This group seems to be good at deceiving people…giving the appearance that they are something other than what they are. As I printed in my previous post, Rush Limbaugh recently made a comparison between Tiger Woods and our current president and how they too like to present an image of something other than what they are. Why do people want to deceive others? Why would someone want to pretend to be ‘Christian’?

This SF teacher has proven what he is and that he can’t be trusted. Students (and their parents) in his school district need to understand that when he claims to be a ‘Christian’ his definition of ‘Christian’ does not line up with scripture. The SF definition of ‘Christian’ obviously means intentionally separating people from their loved ones. And, for what purpose? Who does that benefit?

just me said...

I am not saying that the SF or anyone is trying or have tried to seperated me from my familly, what I was saying is that before all that happend , I was telling some of them that my mariage is ruin and it will never work out, and before we should have kids , I should get a seperation because things will get more ugly if we wait till we have kids, but no one really listen to me, I felt like out of place. They never said , that what I should do or not , they are very carefull in what they tell people to do , but its like a parent , if they dont look at what is good or wrong for their kids and if they dont guide them the right place their kids will be lost, thats how I feel with the way I was guide , I should have went with that i felt at the moment but I trusted some people and now I see that they only did what they thougth was right. But did not look ahead for me , its ok , I am the one show is hurt for ever .

john said...

Dear JustMe:
Your spirit is beautiful. In no way do you seek to blame even the SF and I guess it is of no use to you at this point. You have lost your wife and children to the SF. Of course, the SF will say that the wife and children have made "their own decision". But this sort of "decision" would have been consciously and unconsciously manipulated through the lifestyle, preaching and 'counsel' that the SF doles out to people they want to entrap.
It is interesting to note that your wife does not even read the Bible. That is what SF intends - that people should NOT read the Bible themselves and have the Lord and His Spirit speak to them. SF wants people to know the Bible through the SF's twisted interpretations and your wife has fallen for this.
For instance, SF does not want people to know the Jesus was God on earth and not a cheap miracle-doer from the East. They would rather have him as a 'man' who was a cheap miracle-doer or god-man from the East who 'became God'.
There are many many such twisted notions the SF has about Scripture and Jesus and God. For instance that verse about 'hating father, mother, etc'. They use this to separate families unto themselves.
But now what can one do, my dear JustMe? God will teach the SF a lesson. In the meantime, you hurt for your children. It is a fact that your wife hates you or despises you. It is a fact that you cannot be together despite many attempts by yourselves and others to help you. What can one do?
Remember, God loves you even if your wife hates you. Jesus loves you even if the SF hate you. THE LORD ACCEPTS YOU JUST AS YOU ARE.
The SF teaches that you have to DO MANY THINGS to be accepted by God and Jesus. It is a lie they teach. God accepts you as you are in your very special and hurting situation. The Holy Spirit is there to help you - His Name is also Comforter.
God who is Love is working on your case with many tears in His eyes.
Now what can you do? Let the SF keep its evil to itself. You can bow down before God and say 'help me'. Say it again and again till He helps you perfectly.
Till now, you depended on your wife and the pastor and the SF people. It all failed. Now you can depend on God and Jesus alone. He never condemns anyone like the SF. Unlike the SF, He doesn't hate sinners and separate Himself from them. He descends to help sinners.
He doesn't want to destroy anyone's life or family like the SF. Call unto Him and many of us can pray for you. Wait on Him with your hurt and He will come to help you. He helped people who did not even give Him thanks. The SF helps only those who become the slaves of the group.
Dear JustMe, begin praying and keep praying and "wait on the Lord".
He will lift up his countenance upon you and heal you and comfort you and wipe your tears away.
Perhaps, you may never meet your wife or children again as their 'lord' is the SF and the false Jesus they preach. But you yourself will taste and see that Jesus is good. I encourage you to cry out to Jesus daily in all your weakness and hurting and suffering. He will bless you directly. The days of your dependence on human beings are over. God bless you.

Harold said...

just me: Thanks for sharing a little of your experience with SF. I find it interesting that you have been following this discussion for a year. I wonder how many other SF are out there silently following this blog.

I feel for you and your situation. From what little you have been able to share it isn’t easy for me to determine the extent that SF is involved, or the source of your frustration. I think that any church would counsel a couple in your situation to try and preserve the marriage.

At the same time, as John pointed out, SF has a history of separating families. This local group in Owasso is no exception. It seems that they have several other young people here as well that they are working on even now.

You said: “We started to have more fellowship with some SF people , I was 10 hour drive from the closest church , so some people from there move to where I live, try to help up for years but our marriage was never going to work.”

So how did you become involved with a church that was a 10 hour drive from you? And how is it that someone in that church would pick up and move to where you were, and spend years there just to try and help you?

I do have to point out from what you said that your wife seems to put the SF church in a higher priority than her marriage and that’s not only wrong but very cultish behavior. How does she, or SF, justify that behavior from a Biblical standpoint?

John is right in that if you put your hope in people they will disappoint you because we are all sinners. We all have fallen short of the glory of God. Jesus came that we may have hope in one who is worthy. If you read through the Bible one of the interesting facts is the Jesus never refused to help anyone who asked. So put your hope in the only begotten Son of God and not created beings that have fallen like us. Many people have survived much worse by doing just that.

SF teaching is to hate your neighbor who is not SF. God’s commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. So love your wife and children as much as you are able and that they will let you and try to lay the rest at the feet of Jesus the Christ so you don’t have to carry that burden.

john said...

Harold: "This local group in Owasso is no exception. It seems that they have several other young people here as well that they are working on even now."
This sounds disturbing. Is there no way these young people can be reached and told that they are playing with a fire that will lead to their spiritual destruction in the long term within a group that has a bizarre doctrine?
One reason why SF is able to steal sheep from other churches is because these churches really do not know how to look after their youth who are looking for 'strong medicine' in their confusion and lostness within a post-modern milieu.
May God Himself protect these young souls! May there be a very powerful prayer tower built to preserve the youth from this group.
In the end, I have noticed that it is those with high spiritual ambitions which connect self-purification with becoming 'like God' who get sucked in by this group.
It was this spiritual 'ambition' that led Eve to be enslaved by the serpent and that is what SF counts on in an individual to entrap him or her.
The times are really dangerous. May God help us to pray and watch over our young people lest they fall prey to such manipulation and deception of their eager souls.

just me said...

Well first of all, me and my wife could never be like friend , before the SF she would do whatever the pastor told her too, then after I left that church and something happing with that pastor about SF cause they got involve alot in our life witch the pastor did not like , so my wife left that church, then the people from SF was even more involve but then my wife just would listen to one of the SF, that person had more control over my familly then what i could have myself, certain people thought I was depress and my be in need of medication witch i try for a few month , to try to get our mariage better. But that got worst cause the probleme for me and my wife is that , I hate to be provote for stupid little things , and for her she like to find things to fight about , every little comment about me and the way I am so that cause pretty much all our fights. So when I try those medication for depression, after a month or so , I notice that my wife would still provoke me , then if I would get fustrated, a few min later when i was away , I notice she would count how many pills I have left, then if she thought I did not take any she would wait about 20 min to ask me if I have taken them , after a while I stop talking them in purpose just to see how serious it was the way she would monitor those medication, you can imagine how much more fustrated I would get after that she started a fight and then try to say its because I did not take those pills. Our friend from SF that knew about it seem to just make me feel like I was always the probleme , the reason why , I think it was easyer to try to change me then to change my wife , since my wife was alway listen to what they tell her, stuff to do for the church and some trip here and there, she would be very faithfull to what they say to her, for me I just hated to be in any church and fight all the time with my wife so I stop going to meeting meany time then would come back to try to fixe my mariage , it always been up and dowm for me , expecialy since I got maried, after a while I lost the trust in some people that try to help me, seem maybe very complicated to understand but its almost imposible to explain the last 10 years in writing , so thats why I try to write few things at the time, I feel like I have to do this here for myself, its not to put SF down or put them up , its just for me to get some healing from all the mental abuse that I got all those years, thanks everyone for listen and for the advised .

Giving it to god said...

My mainstream christian bible study is going good, I battle myself having hard time trusting christians post the smith's friends. I'm always afraid "ok if I let them into my heart, are they just going to abuse me and do all they can to destroy me to oneday?" I've been through hell with the smith's friends, I worry to I worry that employers might find out I suffer from a mental "disorder" - though barely, I take my meds everyday and have stopped the thing in it's tracks very early on. But I worry anyways.
I might be taking a break from my bible study some to dragon boat, maybe go 1-2 times a month to bible study instead of every week. I just miss dragon boating so much, it gets me out socializing a lot which is really good for me.
Glad I was able to make a clean break from the smith's friends cult, having family in it still like "just me" does - if he has anything to do with his wife or kids he will have to hear their cult buisiness........ I know cause I was continually trying to "Save" my families souls when I was in the "smith's friends" The smith't friends are like the mormons in that they eat breath and sleep their doctrine or that was my experience of them anyways : )

Harold said...

John: I agree with most of your statements about sheep stealing. You kind of answered your own question as to if there is no way these young people can be reached. The difficulty, I think, lays not so much with the church and their lack of ‘strong medicine’ but because young people are such easy targets. They are in a transition state, still young and inexperienced, yet full of desire to be independent and grown up. Most teenagers go through that stage where they think their parents, who try to give advice, are too protective, overbearing, or stupid. It doesn’t take much for a charismatic narcissist to come along and convince these young people that their parents are controlling and demanding but that HE offers them freedom.

There is a quote from L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology cult, where he says “If you really want to enslave people tell them that you are going to give them total freedom.”

He also said “The only way you can control people is to lie to them.”

This is a lot like the Disney story of Pinocchio when he gets lured by Honest John into going to Pleasure Island. To Pinocchio it all seems like so much fun. But Honest John wasn’t so honest. He was able to control Pinocchio and Lampwick through his lies and deceit and promises of freedom at Pleasure Island. There is a lot of grown up truth in those children’s stories like Pinocchio.

So how do you reach people who are enslaved with lies? How do you break through that barrier of mental isolation and lies with truth?

When elf assura first showed up on this blog he asked the question, referring to this girl’s family; “Did they manage to de-program her?” So why would he ask this question? If she is not “programmed” why would he assume that her friends and family would attempt to “de-program” her?

Why would this SF leader and his family work so hard to keep this girl apart from her former friends and family both physically and mentally if she wasn’t programmed with lies in the first place? If they have the “truth” then what are they afraid of?

And how do we know that she has been deceived with lies? Refer to what Russian said on Aug 15. He repeated lies that he has heard from those within the group. How many other lies have been used to control her?

“…and the truth will set you free." John 8:33

john said...

Harold: You are right. It's the youthful blood and the inexperience and the desire to go for something "good" and "out of this world" and that promises "freedom" that draws the young people to the kind of stuff promised by sects and cults. And thus, they get trapped in a sect or begin to follow human beings.
If you look at the brunstad.org site, it is so nicely dressed up.and seems like such a wonderful 'gospel' is being offered. It is a well conceived plan of seduction. But not one of those who will fall prey to the icing on the cake will know that underneath it lies not the Bible but the twisted interpretation of a few Norwegian "apostles" - who have no idea about what God has done through many many others over 2000 years to build the Body of Christ and imagine that they are this 'body" - and that this interpretation is what they will have to blindly obey in the manner that it is propagated.
Interesting that you have quoted Ron Hubbard too for he knew how to build a 'religion', become rich and fool people. The SF also has secretively learnt this methodology of Scientology and implements it.
It is also interesting that all the SF "loyalists" who came to this site have consistently run away on being faced with the 'truth'. This is their standard operating procedure. When they are discovered or challenged about their core doctrines and beliefs and their behavioural system, they run away. Which is why they also operate secretly in places like Owasso - "creeping into the houses of women" and into the "mind of young people". They prefer to operate like "terrorists" - secretly and underground and once someone is in their clutches they work very hard to "program" them with both "goodies" and an "inflexible pattern of thought".
I have realised over time that those who have escaped this group even if scarred have really been "saved". I pity those who are in the group and who are "innocent". And more and more I realise that I must pray to God on a daily basis for him to put obstacles in the path of their "evangelism".
The more people who will join in prayer that this group be "bound" on earth as in heaven, the safer for the youth they are trying to indoctrinate. For God can step in to help where other help does not exist.
Psalm 91 - the psalm David used to fight evil spirits and demonic forces that brought human beings into bondage - must be the call to prayer-warfare against this group throughout 2010. In fact, let us pray that God may be merciful to the deluded common people in this group (the leaders will not change as they would lose their monetary profits and the power of control the possess because of the counterfeit they possess)and bring then to the true freedom that our Lord and God Jesus Christ promised.
“…and the truth will set you free." John 8:33

john said...

Harold:
Here is another one who suffered in SF.
http://open.salon.com/blog/heidi_hough/2009/04/08/so_i_was_raised_in_a_cult_now_what
Quoting relevant sections:
1. When that Mormon polygamist group’s insider drama hit the news circuits last year, the CEO of the sponsorship marketing firm I work for sent around a joking email reading, ‘This is marketing gone wrong.’ On the page of the NY Times, next to the article’s aerial photo of the group’s vast, cookie-cutter white temple in Utah was an ad for Disneyworld, with the Cinderella castle logo, reading, innocent in its creepy irony, ‘The happiest place on earth.’

The women of that Mormon group and the lavish, ostentatious fortress with its surrounding compound looks almost exactly like the Sisters, as the women in my childhood group, ‘The Church’ are called. The Church’s ‘conference centers’ spread around the world bear an eerie and disturbing resemblance to that temple as well. The similarity was not – is never, in any encounter with news flashes on cults – lost on me.

The Church was like a Buddhist temple surrounded by the barbed wire of a concentration camp.

That’s what it was like for me, growing up there.

Outsiders couldn’t get in, and if you already were inside, you couldn’t get out.

But someone always tries to get past the guards.

When I finally did thrash my way out, dripping blood but glowing hope, I found it was as they said.

The World was a minefield. And the bombs would get you sooner or later.

Sooner or later most escapees drag themselves back to the jagged haven, preferring the torture room to an unknown lurking death.

Sometimes, still, I think of going back, bowed for punishment, cowering for a bowl of warm gruel. But it’s too late. The swamp I’m wading through has swallowed the trail.
And I have glimpsed a green, clean light, up and above the valley of the shadow of death, where bombs do not lie in wait, and entangling barbs are not the only alternative.
2. Intrepid explorer.

My imagination thrills to the two words that veritably sum up my choices since the first time I questioned unquestionable authority and vowed to strike out on my own against all odds. I was seven, and a leading Brother, as the men were known among the Christian fundamentalists I was born into, had just warned my father I was a flirt, and should be reigned in. I felt a primal disgust and wanton rebellion, vowing internally to be just what they wanted to control. To the abject pleasure of a committed dissident, I went on to become known as a Jezebel in The Church before running away at the age of sixteen.
Now, years later, I find myself back at the crossroads: take the sensible, prescribed route or strike out on the path less traveled? And the answer is, do what I do best, go against the odds and follow my intuition.

The second part shows how the SF ostracises those within who do not toe the line or who question SF - they become Ananias and Sapphira, Sauls, Jezebels, etc.

Sophie said...

Just me: “I should have went with that i felt at the moment but I trusted some people and now I see that they only did what they thougth was right.”

You are obviously not the only person that has ‘trusted’ people in this group or others like it. From what you’ve described here, it sounds as if your wife has placed her trust in them. The girl described here obviously trusted them as well. There have been many more who’ve posted on this blog that had trusted people in this group. That’s what they want. That’s why it is important to read, learn, and know scriptures (and the meanings of the original translations) for ourselves. We should trust God and the Holy Spirit to lead us based on the intellect and knowledge grounded in His Word. Too many times we put our trust in other people only to be let down, hurt, deceived, or even destroyed.

Prov. 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.”

John 14:1, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in Me.”

Psalm 37:3, “Trust in the Lord and do good,”

“Well first of all, me and my wife could never be like friend , before the SF she would do whatever the pastor told her too, then after I left that church and something happing with that pastor about SF cause they got involve alot in our life witch the pastor did not like , so my wife left that church, then the people from SF was even more involve but then my wife just would listen to one of the SF, that person had more control over my familly then what i could have myself”

No person should ever blindly do whatever ‘the pastor’ tells them to. We’ve all seen that ALL people are fallible and our tendency is to sin. But, we don’t need ‘a pastor’ or ‘a church’ to become so involved in our lives that they come between us and our spouse, children, friends, or siblings and telling us what to do. That is wrong. ALL churches, including SF, are made up of fallible people. In the Bible, we are referred to as sheep. When sheep follow sheep, they remain lost, that’s why Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd; we are to follow Him.

John, you continue to make known materials that reveal the inner workings and truth about this group and also bring out some interesting points. Your last post was again very informative. It is heartwarming to see a young woman who grew up in this group ‘question unquestionable authority’ and have the freedom to live her life. She said, “a leading Brother, as the men were known among the Christian fundamentalists I was born into, had just warned my father I was a flirt, and should be reigned in.” This is a prime example of a church trying to have control over an individual or family as also mentioned by ‘just me’.

John said, “It was this spiritual 'ambition' that led Eve to be enslaved by the serpent and that is what SF counts on in an individual to entrap him or her.”

I had begun writing the following when you had posted: When Eve was approached by satan, she too placed her trust in the wrong one and was deceived and lured away from the relationship that she had with God. Satan has been using his deceptive tactics ever since to lure us away from God by making things appear as something they aren’t. People like Tiger Woods, our current president, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, terrorist groups, or Bernard Madoff all use deceptive tactics for selfish purposes.

“There are many many such twisted notions the SF has about Scripture and Jesus and God. For instance that verse about 'hating father, mother, etc'. They use this to separate families unto themselves.”

Sophie said...

You’re correct in your conclusion that ‘they use this to separate families unto themselves’. If they really believe this line of thinking, then why don’t THEY hate their own father, mother, etc.? Why don’t THEY separate from their own families? They apparently don’t. They just systematically lure others and dominate their time thus separating them from all their former interests and relationships. In my last post, I mentioned the hypocrisy of this group. This is one of many teachings and behaviors that illustrate their hypocrisy.

You wrote: “Which is why they also operate secretly in places like Owasso - "creeping into the houses of women" and into the "mind of young people".

This observation and description lines up very well with the passage in 2 Timothy 3:1-9 “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men appose the truth-men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”

You also said: “They prefer to operate like "terrorists" - secretly and underground and once someone is in their clutches they work very hard to "program" them with both "goodies" and an "inflexible pattern of thought".

Your comparison in the operation of terrorists and groups such as the SF is remarkable. As we’re all too well aware, there are innocent people who have been deceived into joining extreme terrorism groups such as al-Qaida. These groups and their teachings cause the members to behave in the ‘extreme’ manner in which they do. The latest terrorist attempt which has been in the media most recently has caught the attention of many. In some respects, this story has similarities to this girl’s situation and others like it. According to news reports, this young man’s parents became ‘worried’ after their son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year old, had ‘broken ties with his parents’ after turning to extremism. It has been reported that this young man grew up in an affluent home with parents who apparently loved him, cared for him, and had a good relationship with him UNTIL he became involved with this extremist group. He was attending an ‘expensive, private university’. According to information given to news reporters, he had never shown ‘attitude, conduct or association that would cause concern’ for his family UNTIL he broke ties with his parents.

When a young person who has always maintained healthy, strong, close relationships with his/her own family and friends ALL OF A SUDDEN breaks those ties, it is a HUGE indication that something has gone awry. This ‘extreme’ behavior is not normal and could be one of the many reasons this girl’s family is as Keith stated, ‘devastated’.

“…and the truth will set you free." John 8:33

just me said...

One thing I can say, from what I saw in the SF , most young people that was born into that church , they seem to be doing ok , and have lots of friend. I think its a good place to be , where i see that its not working out, its for those that come from other church or not church at all, its not that easy to be able to change the whole way of thinking about church and familly, if a person live 20 years or more in a certain way, you cant expect people to become like most SF right away, and I feel that some SF dont understand that , and I probably normal for them.

So what is that place Owasso that I keep hearing about, is that the place where that girl from school maried that teacher s boy. Is that where they live. By the way I know that teacher and the boy very good, all I can say I never had any problem with them , they seem very good people. But that boy was born in that church all is friend are in that church so he live just a normal SF life , and dont really understand about other church or other people from other place outside the SF church.

john said...

Heads up on the new www.brunstad.org site. They're trying to clean up house at least on the outside in the digital sphere.
For instance, here is the doctrinal statement in a nutshell on page 1:
"After our sins have been forgiven, the main focus in the preaching is on God's promises of victory over the sin that lives in our human nature—the only way to true growth and development in our Christian life. (2 Cor. 2:14, 1 Joh. 3:8, Rev. chapters 2 and 3)"
Sounds traditional and evangelical and what the holiness movements talk of.
The sections on "What is Christianity" are also getting to look more mainstream.
So, the big question is: "Are they slowly repudiating the writings of the Fathers (JO Smith, Bratlie, etc)?" Or are they just covering up what they teach inside the church - which is that Jesus had sin within himself, sin in the flesh?
If it is not covering up and the doctrine is changing, then is the behaviour going to change too, the exclusivity and the hatred towards all churches? I doubt the behaviour will change.
Do they (present leadership)no longer believe that Jesus was only a man who became God?
I have grave doubts about a genuine "correction" as I have had the opportunity to watch too many videos and read all their literature.
Such a change to mainstream will be too radical for a bunch of leaders like this and the blind followers.

Harold said...

John: Thanks for the link to Heidi’s blog. She seems to have a very interesting story about growing up in Smith’s Friends. She writes very well.

I agree with your comments about prayer. That is the most important part of any spiritual battle and there are many here in Owasso that have joined in prayer for those affected by this group. The SF people are also victims, even the leaders have been deceived and it is our hope and prayer, and I believe that it is God’s desire for all to know the truth and be set free from the spiritual bondage of SF.

Just me: I asked the question earlier and I will ask it again: How did you become involved with a church that was a 10 hour drive from you? And how is it that someone in that church would pick up and move to where you were, and spend years there just to try and help you?

I would also like to ask, since you know this teacher “very good”, was it him and his family that tried to “help” you?

I don’t agree with your idea that the people who grow up in this group are ok, or that it is a good place to be. Granted, there are different experiences for some but, in general, there are too many first hand accounts of questionable behaviors to ignore, especially here in Owasso.

This girl Heidi for instance paints a very clear picture of the SF core beliefs and behaviors that re-enforces all the things that have been brought out on this blog.

She compares the SF group to the Mormon polygamist group which is interesting because there is a book by Elissa Wall called ‘Stolen Innocence’. In this book Elissa describes her life growing up and leaving the Mormon group led by Warren Jeffs. Her descriptions of the group behaviors are very much in line with what Heidi writes about. Most coercive groups like this are, at the very least, demeaning to women. Some are outright abusive.

In your own case, you already talked about how they worked their way between you and your wife and how miserable it has made you for the last 10 years. And now you say that it is a good place to be? I don’t believe it can be both.

Harold said...

Here are some excerpts from other SF encounters taken from another web site. They illustrate that you (just me) and this family in Owasso are not isolated incidents. The core SF behavior is to cause division where there is none, to seek out the weak and separate them from their flock in order to feed their own selfish desires.

-----
My mother should immediately go to work (although we were all school age children). My mother would buy a car so she could take us kids to the meetings. And they should get a divorce from my father. The day I still well remember when a brother came to us and my mother was planning to divorce. It was awful.

All in all, it was then a difficult time, when the Smith's friends came and tried to re-arrange our whole family - by their rules -. The harmonious atmosphere in our family always gave way to a more tense atmosphere.

And disobedience to the senior brothers is disobedience to God.
-----
They taught me that one can only lead a happy life in the community. That one must obey the elders, because they were appointed by God. All other faiths (even my parents were) the "sacred whore" - she expects the eternal hell fire. With my grandparents, uncles and aunts, I should not talk about God's word. There are religious people in the community and not spiritual people. Who is a spiritual person to decide the elders. I was torn. I still loved my parents and family. But if I wanted wholehearted for God, life, then I would break the family ties, hating my parents and my own life and make myself useful to the community. From a community leader, I was urged to help the mothers in the community. I would regularly attend the meetings. For me this was a problem. The distance from my parents' house to the meetings was over 100 miles and I lacked the financial resources. So I stopped my schooling and started work-based training (a job I would never exercise) - just to earn their own money.
-----

Here is another quote from Heidi

“The Church had a fairy tale notion of intimate adult relationships, and it believed, if everything was controlled, and everyone assigned a role, we all really could have our happily ever after.”

In other words, if everyone would submit to SF authority, shut up, sit down, and do only what they are told to do then everyone (which means the SF) would be happy. There would be no arguments if everyone would just submit to them!!

It is typical behavior of all religious cults that the leader, elders, whoever is in charge, places themselves between God and the members. They become the mediators between God and the people. For groups like this, they of course have to elbow Jesus out of the way so that they become supreme rulers. They define what is right or wrong. This is exactly the oppression that Jesus spoke against in the religious leadership of Jerusalem in that day. These SF leaders are exactly what they claim to work against.

God did not create us as mindless robots. He created us with a free will, to be HIS creation. To worship the Creator and not other created beings. That is what makes Jesus different. He wasn’t a created being like us humans. He is THE Son of God, begotten not created. None of us can be like Him in the same way that statues created by men can never be human beings.

Jesus came and gave each one of us direct access to God without having any other men or mediators between us. The veil in the temple was torn in two as a symbol from God that we no longer needed priests (or anybody else) as mediators between us and God. We all now have access to the Most Holy Place of God.

just me said...

Well I will try to explain how I have meet the smiths friend church, about 11 years ago, I went 10 hours drive from where I am from to go see a christian conference, and as I was trying to find my Hotel there was a young guy hitchhiking. While driving him to is place, he told me about the SF church , so thats how I end up meeting them. After a few month I move to that place , I was very impresse with what I was seeying. But to be honest I notice a big change in that church , seem like as much they would be againts more other christian church , they are starting to become the same way.

From what i mean that the SF could be a good place to be. First I did not have a good life as a child with divorce parent , but in the SF church their is not many divorce as we see in our world today. I notice that they have very special familly, but from what I see now , as it goes they started to look more like normal familly , just bigger familly. One things I reallize after all my experience with chuches , JESUS said one place that at then end of time , will he find any faith on this earth , and right now I think its start to show up that there is not much hope and faith. Sorry if I offend some people or their chuch , its not my intention , but to be honest with you all , I dont have much faith in churches anymore. Seen have live to much probleme for 10 years.

And for that familly that I know about the teacher and is boy that maried that girl, I just know them from longtime ago , I did not see them often the last few years but they never got into my personnal life, it was just friend from the conference. I know this blog is alot againts SF , I respect that but I am pretty sure that any church in this world there is big probleme , hope that I am wrong on this .But from my experience and some people from all kind of church I have talk to , lots of them lost hope in church. Thanks for listen to me. And in no way I am trying to put SF down or up , I just dont care about them anymore , I just need to get free from this pass 10 years of my life and its nice that I can come here to share thing from my heart.

Sophie said...

Just me: “By the way I know that teacher and the boy very good, all I can say I never had any problem with them , they seem very good people.”

Some things are facts; some things are opinions. It may be your ‘opinion’ that they ‘seem very good people’. I don’t know where you’re from, but it is a ‘fact’ that in The United States of America, our government is not allowed to establish a religion. It’s part of the establishment clause in our constitution. The PUBLIC schools are part of our government and are funded by the taxpayers. It is also a fact that this teacher was using his government-funded classroom to proselytize his students which are essentially a captive audience. He violated the trust of the very ones who pay his salary-the taxpaying parents.

So, if when you sent your child to a public school, the individual whom you trusted and paid to teach a particular subject matter to your child instead used his/her teaching position and his/her religious beliefs to turn your child against you and other loved ones, then move your child into his/her house isolating your child from you, would you still say he/she was a ‘very good person’? Is this what you’d want done to you and your child?

Maybe he is a good person; but he’s obviously made some very poor choices (likely based on SF skewed religious teachings) which have hurt lots of people. Many people could be described as ‘good’ people, but we’re still all sinners and we all make poor choices from time to time. The Bible says, “ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” That is why Jesus Christ died, because we’re ALL sinners and we ALL need a SAVIOR. We can never be saved by our own goodness; this teacher is no different.

Mt.19:17, “Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

The Bible also has a great deal of scripture about repentance (to feel sorrow for one’s sin and determine to do what is right; a feeling of regret or sorrow for something said or done).

Sophie said...

Jere 15:19, “Therefore this is what the Lord says: “If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve Me.”

Mt 4:17, “From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Mt 21:32, “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe Him.”

Mk 6:12, “They went out and preached that people should repent.”

Lk 5:32, “Jesus answered them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Lk13:3, “I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish”.

Lk 15:10, “In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 17:30, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent.”

Acts 26:20, “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.”

Rom.2:4-5, “Or do you show contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when His righteous judgment will be revealed.”

2Cor 7:10, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

2 Tim 2:25-26, “Those who oppose him, he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

2 Pet 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Sophie said...

Goodness cannot get us into heaven; it is by the power of the blood of Christ and the repentance of our sins, which gives us forgiveness of sins from God. Repentance leads us to salvation and the knowledge of the truth. Repentance leaves no regret, saves us from God’s wrath and perishing. Repentance restores us to a rightful relationship with God.

If this teacher or his son are Spirit-filled Christians and really care about this girl, it seems they would want her to have the same lifelong, healthy relationships she’s always had. Due to the fact that her behavioral changes coincide with the same time frame in which she became involved and moved in with this group, it is arduous to dismiss the underlying cause.

“But that boy was born in that church all is friend are in that church so he live just a normal SF life , and dont really understand about other church or other people from other place outside the SF church.”

You are probably correct in stating that ‘all of his friends are inside of that church’ and he probably doesn’t ‘really understand about other churches or other people from other place’s outside of the SF church’. Just because one attends or belongs to a certain ‘church’ doesn’t mean you can only hang around with people from that same ‘church’. Perhaps this is one reason this group appears so cultish.

Harold: “Jesus came and gave each one of us direct access to God without having any other men or mediators between us.”

Jeremiah 17:5 says, “This is what the Lord says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.”

Harold said...

Just me: First you said: “By the way I know that teacher and the boy very good…”

Now you say you don’t know them so good.

“I just know them from longtime ago , I did not see them often the last few years … it was just friend from the conference.”

If you know these people only from conferences that happened a “long time ago” then it seems odd that you, at first, would say that you know them “very good”.

There is another oddity that needs to be brought out in your comment that “seem like as much they would be againts more other christian church , they are starting to become the same way.”

Why would a church who claims to be the Bride of Christ; who refers to ALL other churches as “harlots”; why would they want to make themselves look like other churches? Why would they work so hard to hide their true beliefs from the rest of the world, if not to deceive innocent and unsuspecting people?

Another thing is that I am not so much against Smith’s Friends as much as I am for the truth. If they want to believe that Jesus was born a man and became God that is their business, but that is totally at odds with the whole of Christianity, so why call themselves Christians? Why not call themselves something different and write their own holy book like the Mormons?

If they believe it is ok to move young girls into their home and teach them to hate their parents then why lie about it and pretend that’s not what happened? If you truly believe your actions are righteous then why lie about them?

You’re a good example of what happens when a narcissistic church leader uses religion to control others. When people like you realize that they have been manipulated then they tend to have an aversion to all churches. If you read the stuff on Hiedi’s web site, I believe this is where she is too. She doesn’t want to have anything to do with a church because the only ones she has known have been abusive. That is an understandable reaction for people who have put their trust and hope in men.

If you understand and believe that all men are sinners, that only God the Creator is trustworthy, and He has spoken to us through His word, the Bible, and His only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, and that He came to us in human form as an atonement for us, then your hope is not in this world so you can’t be controlled by this world.

That to me is the essence of Christianity. Some people I know go so far as to not even refer to themselves as Christians but rather as a “Christ followers”. They choose to disassociate themselves from any formal religion, even Christianity. The actions of this group of Smith’s Friends helps to make that argument attractive.

Unknown said...

Harold,
Any chance you could email me at cdnloon99@aol.com?
Thanks

just me said...

Harold , sorry for the way I explain myself about that teachers familly, what I mean about know them good and not knowing much anymore lol, I know its confusing , first let me tell you that my first language is not english so sometime it dont say things the way i mean.

OK for the teachers familly , I knew them very good before they move to where they are now , I use to see them at the meetings every sunday when I was living where is that fellowship. But then I move back 10 hours away and was only seeying them at conference and then they move far away . So I did not get to know them as much the last few years. But I do know that teachers brother very good , and all I can say that he try to help me alot trought my mariage and even tho he is very busy , he did is best , thats how I feel. I know its kinda confusing coming here and talking againts the SF church , I said from the beginning that it was not what I attend to do. To be against or to be for that church. To me they are not any better or worst then any other christian church thats all.


And for what I was saying about the SF church becoming like any other christian church , what I mean its that about 10 years ago, lots of things was diferent from now , about the way girls dress , television, the way they teaching have become, what I mean about that its before they seem to be more againts evangilize like they are doing now , using internet having big conference center like brunstad to bring people in . Thats how most big church around the world are doing, build huge building and trying to get people in. So when I have met the SF church 12 years ago , they always talk againts having big buildings and a name as church , then they had no name for there church, the name SF comes from the people outside that church. Now they use the name brunstad. I have nothing againts that . but I have heard it so many time that church should not have any name beside just being a christian church . To me its very hard to understand how can certain things was not ok 12 years ago , and now its acceptable , very confusing. One of the reason I dont bother to go to any church anymore , I still believe in the same GOD , Jesus and what the bible say. But my mind could just not take it anymore. The thing I blame the most for my confusion its my mariage , it got me so fustrated that I was just losing my mind .

thanks for listen and hope its more clear , not easy for me to explain in another language.

john said...

Harold: Heidi is terrified of this group. Note the comment on her blog: "For purposes of not getting suued, I can't reveal the media term for the cult, so in my writing I'll just stick to what 'they' call themselves: 'The Church.'"
One knows that she is speaking of SF because an ex-SF member came in and commented on her blog: "A friend refered me to this article and I am impressed by your writing skills. I wish you and your brother all the best. And I think it's somewhat natural that after a long period in a very "opiatic" environment one needs a transition period where a joint feels very pleasant. But we have to move on. Yes we, I also grew up in this particular cult and as I'm getting older I'm getting more and more certain I did the right choice when leaving Smith's Friends twelve years ago as a 16 year old kid.
Greetings from Europe
Toralv (http://toralv.no)
I am in full agreement with you that if one is "against" SF in a destructive mode, then one becomes what the SF. But consistent prayer and watchfulness will demolish this false spiritual stronghold.
My point is similar to yours: Why do they masquerade as "christians" when they have a false doctrine and cultish behaviour? They should name themselves something on the lines of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, Mormons, etc.
The point is they are unable to convert the "heathen" so they try to "steal" from the "harlot" or they brainwash their women to bear babies by the dozen so there is internal increase in numbers.
I am also alerted by your note to JustMe. Those who came in earlier flaunting their SF colors here beat a hasty retreat. So now they might try to slip in sideways to make comments that try to paint a picture of SF as a blissful "New Jerusalem" on earth.
Remember, that SF has experience of a 100 years in staying hidden, being able to safely manipulate the flock and keep it imprisoned, manage their public image well by making cosmetic changes so much so that their influence goes into the Norwegian political system, conceal their private reality of being a heretical Arianistic group that believes in mind and behaviour control and exclusivity, and that they are not loathe to use legal threats and physical as in Owasso to ensure that they always are seen as being "righteous" and "holy".

john said...

Here is a rough translation of this news item about SF trying to get a "Bible School" set up, and they want the "Beast", the secular state, to fund it too!!!!
http://griess.st1.at/Nein%20fuer%20die%20Bibelschule.htm
STOKKE: The Smith's friends want in Brunstad a Bible school with three different directions and beginning with 90 students, but the Education Directorate says, no.
In the proposed budget, the management had relied to finance the operation of the school with a state grant. The operating cost was estimated by at least four million crowns, half of which are abundant labor costs.
The Directorate requested in February that the Competence Center Brunstad gives additional information to address the petition. It also made clear that the plans of the school would have on gender quotas and age limit to be abandoned.
Several objections
Although the Conference Center Brunstad had rectified the application in several areas, the Directorate has continued a series of objections. Among other things, it says that the company had used an incorrect method to calculate the state grant.
Also there is confusion and inadequate explanations in the technical area referenced in the rejection.
The Directorate has also objected to the inclusion order in which the school requires it, because the students in meetings and take part in unpaid work assignments.
"The school can not regulate the leisure of students," note the authorities and conclude that the school would not meet the minimum requirements that resulted from the Private School. Appeal against this decision is allowed.

(Brunstad makes huge savings on labour because it uses "youth" labour from within the churches around the world who are paid pittance for "free" and "voluntary" work on the Alag or A-team all the year around. The A-team not only saves money for Brunstad (the volunteers work for 600 NOK a month and lodging and food) but also takes away from the local economy of potential jobs and salaries.)

john said...

SMITHS FRIENDS LOVE FOR MAMMON 1

Harold: You had wanted to know about the assets of the SF. Here is something on the real estate it has invested in - amounted to over One Billion in 2006. Since then they have bought even more places in Ukraine, India, etc.
All of it is run by corporations in which the "sheep" have no stake at all other than to feed their monthly money into ventures run by the millionaire "brothers" like Kare Smith who are "leaders".
http://tb.no/article/20060923/NYHETER/109230318/1090/AT
Using Google Translate:
STOKKE: Brunstad is Smith's Friends' largest and most important property, but the church has a total property value of one billion worldwide. Here are some of them.

Lars Larssen Døvle

Fred Foss Cultural Park

Former factory at Vestfossen in Flesberg. Purchased by the Christian Church (DKM) in Eiker in 2000 for 3.8 million kroner. Has invested 100,000 voluntary work hours and approx. 25 million kroner thereafter. A meeting place for church and commercial courses, conference and cultural center. Operated by a corporation owned by the church, and which also operates Sørli course and resort in Holleia in Buskerud.

Torstein beaten and Syningen in Ål

On Torstein mountain have the congregation had a resort in almost 50 years. Syningen Mountain Park was the property Brunstad Conference Center took hold of Changing Property as a replacement for Eastern Bolærne. Will eventually assume ownership. Here is a large, easy-equipped cottage. Plans for development and commercial use of the property.

Jarlsberg airport, TONSBERG

Flytårn and HV-house, bought from Real Change in 2004 at 2.3 million. Should be hall of DKM in Tønsberg, the meeting hall, gymnasium, etc. activity. The planned expansion will double the multi-building complex.

Borre Valley farm, HORTEN

Purchased by DKM in 1997 for 6.8 million kroner. Attaches of the church in Horten, which has built local over 2200 square meters. The farm also has an elegant, old farmhouse.

Skravestad farm, SANDEFJORD

Just over 500-acre farm in Sandefjord, purchased in 2005 for 7.5 million U.S. Located Skravestad AS, which in turn is owned by the Foundation Brunstad Conference Center. To be used for recreation for its members, including ridesenter. Riding Center.

Ryenstubben 2, OSLO

Farm at Oslo's East End, the habitat of DKM in Oslo and Follo. Rent out commercial premises. Extension of 2500 square meters was inaugurated in 2004. There are plans for a new local congregation in the long run, probably somewhere in Follo. Maintenance and rental of Ryenstubben 2 will help to pay this. DKM in Oslo and Follo has also Brei Violence farm excursion place.

(MORE)

john said...

SMITHS FRIENDS LOVE FOR MAMMON 2

Grasmyr

By Stathelle in Bamble, formally taken over in 1996 for £ 602,000. Local over 4700 square feet built by volunteers. Habitat for DKM in Grenland. Next to it is building 13 apartments for elderly members. DKM in Grenland also owns resorts on Risøya at Porsgrunn and the Water Lian farm at Kviteseid.


Stavanger Adjunct Hauglands, NORWAY

DKM in Stavanger built premises in 1990 - 91, it is today close to 2,600 square feet. Parts of the premises rented out to companies etc. DKM in Stavanger bought in 2002 Jonas Øglænds former corporate house in the Solheim valley in Sirdal to the resort for 4.5 million kroner. The cabin is 660 square feet. The Church has also contributed to the purchase of a property on Snøde in the sun for 15 million. Owned by the company Snøde Hestesenter AS. DKM in Stavanger has sold his previous outing place Solhøy to contribute to the funding, and organized crown roll among its own members.

Krabbedalen, Bergen NORWAY

Headquarters for DKM in Bergen, approx. 10 minute drive from downtown. Church Lounge, caretaker residence and renting premises. On Svanlitangen, 20 km outside the city, the church has a 16-acre resort with the main building of nearly 700 square feet. Newly built annex to accommodate Pool. DKM in Bergen also has an estate of 70 acres in Kåre Viken, Hordaland, with 400 m shoreline.

Hessenhöfe and Schlosshof in Germany

The German SF have their main gathering place for Hessenhöfe in southern Germany, where the meeting hall is approx. 2000 seats. Plans to repair the gathering place. Not far away is Schlosshof, DKM-resort with a variety of offers.

Pagedal in The Netherlands

Located near the town of Stadskanaal, is under development for a large-scale gathering and holiday resort with a main building of 10,000 square meters, assembly hall, sports fields and swimming pool. The church should establish Pagedal Conference Center that can accommodate approx. 2000 people to date at the same time.

(MORE)

john said...

SMITHS FRIENDS LOVE FOR MAMMON 3

Macleay in the U.S.

120 targets large property at Salem in Oregon. Meeting hall recently expanded to accommodate 700 people. Has opened good shop and coffee shop, built a new gymnasium, swimming pool with hot pools, sports fields, playground, two saunas, as well as the hall. A separate "Gold Team" has closed 82,000 voluntary work hours, with up to 400 people at work simultaneously.

USA Victory (North Eastern Christian Conference Center) in USA

Located at the Cato of the State of New York. Under development. The hall is extended by 100 seats. Eight churches in the eastern United States and Canada to summon instead.

Paso Flores, Argentina

Farm near the foot of the Andes. 40 SF live nearby, mostly Germans emigrated. Engaged in agriculture, welcome tourists and offer various activities. 2000 hectares of land was flooded for more than 15 years ago, emerged the lake with fishing opportunities. Hold two annual meetings of friends from Argentina, Chile and Peru.

Long Point Camp in Australia

In the outskirts of Sydney, gathering and recreational place since 1988. Naboeiendom purchased in 2004, the old house where renovated. New meeting hall for 300 people, rooms, cabins, playground, swimming pool, sauna, barbecue area, sports facilities. Was rented to the Olympics in Sydney in 2000.

Published on Saturday 23 September 2006. 07:00.

The network of Smiths Friends owned private corporations used to funnel and channel the money of the "shorn sheep" into private money chambers is being scoped by some interested folks and some of that information should emerge sometime soon.
(END)

Harold said...

John: It is interesting that you mentioned the Northeast Christian Conference Center (NECC). I did some research on that not long ago. Apparently there is conflict going on in the town of Victory NY between the Northeast Christian Conference Center and the townspeople of Victory. The minutes of the town meetings are published at www.cayugacounty.us/townofvictory/minutes.

In Dec. 2008, there is a dialog that describes the SF plans for that property. There are apparently plans to build townhouses that are “set up on the same order as a time share.”

One of the councilmen said this “The 1989 agreement made with NECC doesn’t conform to what they are now proposing to build. There will be a lot of opposition to this project and everyone needs to be prepared for what is to come.”

In May of this year there were interesting comments from attending residents:
“Very concerned about traffic problems. When they hold events cars speed up and down the road, sometimes 10 at a time at intervals and the amount of traffic increases dramatically. What can be done about this?”

“We do not have the deep pockets and money that they do to fight this.”

Apparently the NECC aren’t very good neighbors, but here is the point I want to make. What happened to the idea that you should ‘deny yourself’. From their literature and many comments from SF people on this blog, this is supposed to be a very important part of their preaching. But from what I can determine they don’t really live this out. What I see are leaders that own companies with lots of “free market” labor, who own big houses, drive nice new cars, hot tubs, swimming pools. And now they are offering time share condos for their members at NECC.

They also spent a lot of time and effort to get a tax-exempt status for their property. This was also very controversial. So now they are able to build condos for their members without having to pay property taxes. This allows them the benefits of the town’s utilities, roads, fire departments, police, etc, without having to pay for it. No wonder the local residents aren’t happy.

Their web site may look nice and talk about all the mission work but where is their money going? This looks more and more like an exclusive country club than an evangelical church.

Real evangelism in churches occurs when money and resources are outward flowing. These resources are used to spread the word of Christ without any obligation back to the any church congregation or denomination.

The SF type of evangelism seems to be inward focused were the flow of money and resources exists to benefit the church and the church leaders.

Isn’t this the model of the Mormon Church? The amount of corporate investments by the Mormons is huge. Companies like Marriot Hotels, Beneficial Financial Group, and numerous smaller companies, in addition to a lot of real estate.

Íslenska said...

Some times ago a college tipped me about this website, and I readed some of the articles. It seem that Smiths Friends not exist in Iceland, so I don't know about that church. But that is not necessary to describe this website.

In Europe we have experience from cases where religious groups has been named as dangerous sect or cult. This is very interesting for newspapers and TV, and the criticers of the groups has often exposed their history in media and caused big reactions. Then we was some students on Háskóli Íslands (university in Reykjavik) who tried to do a research of this, because we had some foreign students in our university who belonged one of this churches. Our conclusion was that there is a number of small networks around the world who make critical campaigns about this groups. The media has learned to be critical to the religious groups (that is good), but there is almost no critics to the critical networks. Even organizations financed by european goverments seem to be infiltrated by this networks. A common pattern is that if a person has problems after leaving a group, no question is asked about how this person was before he or she went into the group. This is the easiest way to find out who is a true or fake "cult-expert".

The basic critics against the religious groups is brainwashing, manipulation, no tolerance of critics, the thought "we are the ones", twisting information to adapt their world picture. All this symptoms was much easier to documentate in the critic networks than the religious groups. When we collected information about trials between critics and religious groups we found out that the critics lost more than 90% of the trials. Still was there little sign that the media stopped to use them as source. First in the last years it has been serious reactions about how this networks operate and how they try to fight the freedom of believe.

This blog is a star example of this behaviour. In a anonymous blog a small group of 4-5 people believe they have the ultimate truth about a very dangerous cult. If a victim of this cult appear, you try to get him or her to use stronger words to get support for your already written opinions. If there are things about this persons that can be part of the explanation you turn all this to be the group's fault. If it is information available from experts, everything is twisted around to your own picture, or you say this experts is part of the "conspiration".

A important conclusion that we made was that people who leave a religious group can need proffesional help without putting the name sect or cult to the group. In some cases the same person has got problems with more than one group and still mean that the group is the problem. Still this person can need proffesional help because it is his or her experience of the group that make the trauma, even if the group is "good" or "bad". Blogs like this and people like you is not helping this people, but only making the problems much worse. I think you can't see it yourself, but it seam that your intention is to collect so much negative information about this group as possible, not to discuss how you can really help the people who tell their history.

This discussion is only feeding of your own ego, and the arguments is repeated again and again to keep the discussion alive, and hope that some people will jump into it and get manipulated and twisted. I am not christian, so I can not argument with you about teology, but this destructive blog is not a good advertisement for your own type of christianity. For people with bad experience from religious groups I will recommend to contact a psychologist or doctor instead to be misused by the participants of this narrow discussion.

Gleðilegt nýtt ár!

Harold said...

Islenska: Thanks for jumping into this discussion and providing your opinion. I can appreciate that someone who is not familiar with Christian ideas and principles may view this as just some religious nuts who can’t agree on something like the theory of evolution.

You said you’re not Christian, so do you have any belief? Are you one of those who believe that right and wrong are relative concepts? Do you believe that your concept of right and wrong may be different than mine?

funnyman said...

FULFILLING EARTHLY LAWS – OF WHAT USE IS IT?

I have been reading all the posts on this blog. I thought I would comment on the recent posts.
John recently put up the listing of a lot of SF assets. The market value of property is going to be very high as rightly mentioned. However rather than conclude that the SF has a lot o financial corruption and exists solely to enrich its leaders I would go more with Harold’s line of thought.
Harold you did make a very good point of which I fully agree that in true evangelism the flow of money is outward with no obligation to the home church.

The SF flow of money is predominantly inward. A lot (if not most) of SF funding seems to be toward building conference centers which is actually an effort to promote the comfort of its members. Larger halls, better accommodation etc… is not justifiable when there are so many places in the world where the gospel is not being preached.

While I would not classify this as something wrong in a earthly sense I would feel it is against the teachings of Christ in its truest sense. We cannot escape from our Lord in heaven saying “ I did not break any earthly law….”. So while I feel that the SF may not be breaking earthly laws they fall short of the laws of Christ.
Similarly our discussion of the SF seems to classify them as those who break earthly laws. Embezzlement, deception, mind control, deliberate destruction of family values etc are topics that have come up time and again. One does not need to be a deceiving, mind controlling embezzling destructor of families to miss out on the will of God. Laziness and pride will do that just fine.

The abundant availability of funds is probably more difficult for a church than the absence of it.

To be contd.

funnyman said...

I remember a quote I say hanging on a wall somewhere that I think went like this … “If you love something let it go... If It returns to you it is yours. If it doesn’t it never was…”. I feel the lack of a true trust in God makes us hold on to things and unwilling to let go. It is true for money and also perhaps for people. SF has been hesitant to part with its money and has spent it on itself. If they had only let it go… SF has also been reluctant to sow and let others reap. They have instead been more protective of their flock and raising up fences between themselves and other Christians. An important thing to keep in mind is that the sheep are the Lord’s and He is the good Shepherd, and the ‘flock’ belong to Christ and not to a denomination.
I suspect very little of what the SF does breaks earthly laws. However it is by the laws of Christ which we all will be judged.

So when I read all that is written what I find most disturbing in the SF is pride and indifference on an individual level. The organization may have its ideals, but finally it boils down to individuals and personal relationships. If this is not right then anything done on an organizational level is just a fresh coat of paint.

Having said all this I believe that God can touch people’s hearts and lead them to a true repentance. Even the desire to follow Christ is God Given. I do not think there is any one too far down the road to be out of the reach of God’s mercy and grace. Perhaps God will have mercy and quicken people’s hearts to see their true states.

To this end let us encourage prayer.

END

Harold said...

Just a note for Islenska. I recognize your right to have an opinion and express it. I welcome any sincere input to this discussion. However, “drive-by” comments such as yours don’t do anything for your cause. I would respect your opinion much more if you could defend it.

Take Funnyman for instance. He is a current SF member and while we may have had some differences initially I think the more we discussed theology we actually found that we have much more in common than not. I am truly thankful to that there are some in SF who seem to have a sincere empathy for other people.

I think one of the reasons a lot of information gets repeated is that newcomers to this blog don’t always read all 1200 posts. It’s a lot to read. So things that were talked about a year ago tend to get forgotten.

So, at the risk of repeating myself one more time, let me put some significant events in sequence and try to make my position more clear for those like Islenska.

This girl was introduced to the SF church by the leader, teaching in a public high school class room and she began attending “church” at his home. During that summer she began to withdraw from her family and friends. The week before she was to move into the dormitory at the local university her father invited this SF leader to lunch. At this time the father expressed his concern that the family was feeling disconnected from their daughter and asked this church leader for help in re-connecting with her. The very next week the family moved their daughter into a dorm on campus. The next night they received a phone call from one of the girl’s friends who was concerned because the girl was missing from campus. Nobody had seen her. The parents began searching for her and found her at the home of this SF leader. At this point it became clear that they had secretly planned for her to spend the week of freshman orientation at their home. She stopped answering her phone and the only way that the family could contact her was to go to that home and knock on the door. Soon after this she moved all of her things from the dorm into the home of this SF leader (aka “church”). On one occasion her parents were threatened with legal action when this man and his wife answered the door. Their daughter was living in that home and this SF couple had the audacity to threaten her parents with a law suit because they wanted to see their daughter! Later she told her father that she couldn’t come home because she was afraid of being harmed. This was the way her freshman year at college started.

None of these events have anything to do with theology and everything to do with behavior. I have been on this blog for almost two years now and nobody has been able to give any reasonable explanation for these events other than “that’s what SHE wanted”. That may appear to be the case but that doesn’t justify HIS behavior. He didn’t just allow this girl to move into his home; his family went to the university and picked her up. They worked secretly behind the backs of this girl’s parents to undermine their relationship. Normal parents don’t do this to other parents and it doesn’t matter how old she is, HE is old enough to know better. If they were really following Christ and God’s commandments to love your neighbor as yourself then they would NEVER have done this to another family and I don’t care what religion or belief system the girl’s family is.

Harold said...

There is no reasonable explanation for this behavior other than what it looks like. This whole thing is scripted from the cult handbook on how to recruit members.

1. Separate them from their friends and family.
2. Keep them up late with limited sleep to disorient them.
3. Convince them that they have the only truth and that EVERYONE else is out to get them. Everyone else is a liar! Don’t believe them!
4. The only safe place is with them.

And was it really what SHE wanted? Can you say the same thing about the 900 people who died in Jonestown? Did they really want to drink the Kook-Aid? Did they move to Jonestown with the intention of committing suicide? Or were they brainwashed? Was it suicide or was it murder?

Did this girl know that she was going to have to divorce herself from her family and friends in order to join this “church”? Were all of these requirements laid out for her before she joined this “church”? Where did she get the idea that her parents who raised her and loved her for 18 years would actually cause physical harm to her?

You don’t have to analyze anything beyond this sequence of events to understand that this is classic cult behavior that defines this man and his family. And for the SF community (with some notable exceptions) to endorse and defend this aberrant behavior defines them as a destructive cult organization as well. All the other information about money, properties, and theology, although interesting, only solidifies the evidence against them.

I know that the SF community would really like to forget about the whole thing. To sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. After all she’s married now so why keep bringing up nasty old things like that? Well, because there continue to be lies about these events, which are a determined effort to rewrite that history so that they can cover up their tracks and continue to deceive other people.

If you took your car to a repair shop to get fixed and got ripped off by a dishonest mechanic, would you keep quiet and not tell anybody about it. I think most people would tell their friends so that they didn’t get ripped off also. That’s what good, honest, friends would do. Nobody here wants this man or Smith’s Friends to do this to other people here in Owasso or anywhere else either.

Harold said...

Let’s compare these events against some characteristics of cult organizations. My comments are in parenthesis. The SF community puts a lot of stock in the book that they paid Mr. Lowell Streiker to write, but even Mr. Streiker would agree with this list. I know this for a fact because he wrote them.

1. A cult is a nontraditional religious group based upon the teaching of an authoritarian leader. (Based on what I’ve read on this blog I think the SF leadership fits this description)

2. A cult is a highly structured, strictly disciplined group which demands the total time, dedication, and resources of its members. (Move the girl into your home and manipulate her time and resources so that she has nothing left for her family. And what about A-lag?)

3. A cult sees itself as the only possessor of truth and see those outside the cult as enemies. (The girl told her father that this SF leader had “the truth”)

4. Primary cult activities are recruitment of new members and the raising of funds for the group. (David’s columns?)

5. Cult initiation techniques are frequently based upon deception and psychological coercion. (Where did she get the idea that her parents would harm her? Who was moving her car around so she couldn’t find it?)

6. Money is often obtained under false pretenses. (Since there is no official organization then there is no requirement for accounting of money that is collected that would be for official church organizations registered with the state.)

7. Members of cults are encouraged to cut off communications with family members and friends. (This has been covered many times on this blog)

8. Cultists allow the cult leader to make important decisions concerning career and marriage for them. (Within weeks of starting college and moving into this man’s home this girl changed her major and the entire focus of her career goals.)

9. In many instances, cult members give their possessions and earnings to the group and, in turn, are totally dependent on the group. (From the moment this girl moved into this man’s home she has had no real friends outside the group. She has spent all holidays and vacations with his family. How much of her possessions and earnings are given to the group? Only she knows for sure.)

10. Most cults encourage systematic forms of consciousness altering practices which make individuals amenable to group direction rather than self-determination. (I can’t say anything about this. I will leave this for others.)

On the outside the SF church looks very nice. So did the Peoples Temple. But it doesn’t take much digging to uncover a systemic system of lies and deceit that attempt to cover up all these cultish behaviors. Like new paint on an old house, it may look nice on the outside but underneath that façade it is still an old house. The SF group meets all the qualifications and has earned the cult label.

I agree with Funnyman too, NOBODY is too far down the road to be out of the reach of God’s mercy and grace. Even the worst criminal in prison has a chance for salvation as long as he is still breathing.

“How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” Isaiah 64:5-6

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” Eph 2:8-9

“Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation …” 2 Cor 7:10

Íslenska said...

Harold, you wrote:
"Thanks for jumping into this discussion."

I appreciate the welcome, but I will not go into the discussion, it is the discussion itself that I write about.

You also wrote:
"You don’t have to analyze anything beyond this sequence of events to understand that this is classic cult behavior that defines this man and his family. And for the SF community (with some notable exceptions) to endorse and defend this aberrant behavior defines them as a destructive cult organization as well. All the other information about money, properties, and theology, although interesting, only solidifies the evidence against them."

This is a classic example for how twisted and biased the picture is for this cult critisizers. Based on a short history you have tried to find as much information (which is most rumors, slandering) about it, and then filtrated out and denied any information that can balance it. In the articles I have readed the defending from the members of Smiths Friends is very diplomatic and open for eventualities, compared with the bombastic condemning of this man and his family.

A secure way to identify behavior of this "anticult activists" is this pattern: If one member of the "cult" do something suspect, this is used to condemn the whole group as evil liars, but if it should come some good descriptions of the "cult", this is only "some notable excerptions".

You asked me also about right and wrong and understanding this concepts. I believe that the limit between right and wrong can be individual according to culture, tradition, religion, age, gender and more, but objectivity, respect, freedom of believe, integrity and evidence is absolute terms. This discussion contain none of this values, and even if some of this values was also missing in Smiths Friends, this discussion is not trustworthy to make such critic.

john said...

Harold:
Islenska is probably an SF proxy. He claimed a college tipped him off to this blog. Which college?
He cites some sort of research or studies that critique those who criticise or label groups as cults.
He says he knows nothing of theology and that he is not a Christian.
In which case, he is not equipped to discuss the theology of the SF.
He said he does not know SF in Iceland (sic). Then how can he comment other than generally on what is on this blog?
He has nothing to say about the way the girl was sucked into the sect/cult.
He actually defends it with his silence. Indeed, I am certain that he as good as believes that those who are brainwashed by cults are actually exercising "freedom of choice".
It is almost certain that Islenska is an SF proxy unless he can prove his credentials by citing the college that tipped him off to this blog and cites the fantastic "research" that he claims he has read, even if it be written in Icelandic.
Since the SF followers fled from this blog, this could be another way SF is trying to "defend" its actions in Owasso.
Harold, as you said, Funnyman seems to be sensible but then it is also obvious that he is not a die-hard, brainwashed SF person and has some knowledge of theology and the larger domain of Christ's kingdom which is much wider than the ideas that thrive in a Norwegian frog pond.

john said...

Funnyman:
Nowhere have I said the SF is into embezzlement. Like you said they are very clever with "earthly" laws. Bernt Aksel Larsen and others in SF are said to be "business" experts who are seeking to find loopholes in earthly laws and turn it to SF advantage in terms of Mammon. This is something SF members take pride in.
Brunstand knows how to get cheap youth labour, how to take away jobs from locals, how to disperse their wealth across international borders, how to con its members into working long extra hours to bring money into its centralised coffers, how to get people to mortgage their homes to pay Brunstad's debts (in England), how to strategically buy a piece of land and then bargain with the Norwegian state to get richer land (the case of an island), how to invest in housing, in five star restaurants, in businesses in East Europe and Russia, how to con little children even to part with their pocket money!
This is not embezzlement but the demonstration of brilliance of Mammon that outshines the poverty of Christ.
I have only pointed out that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich (SF) to enter the kingdom of heaven".
The benchmark is the Master who did not have two pennies on him, much less time-share condos, golf courses and swimming pools to relax in.
He was on no Board of Directors that controlled millions worth of real estate across the world with the power and control in the hands of just a few "elect". Mammon's elect?
Peter and John testified: Silver and gold have we none!!!
Babylon - city of commerce and merchants who trade in souls.
Is it not easy to recognise this?

Íslenska said...

John, I wrote earlier: "If it is information available from experts, everything is twisted around to your own picture, or you say this experts is part of the 'conspiration'."

I am not expert, the study we did was not science, but a project as a part of the education, and it was my groups task to make a research about freedom of believe and present it for the other students. This led us in the open arms of the "cult criticers", but we actually did no research about Smiths Friend, since we did not know about this group. Although it now is 3 years ago (and I am not student any more) I find it interesting to find information on internet about this. I have a college who belong to a christian church (not Smiths Friends), and after some discussions he know that I am interested in this, and he talked to me about this blog. His wife is norwegian, and I guess that is the reason that he know about this blog.

So, I am a proxy and part of the conspiration. I am sorry to tell you that you are not the first to be paranoid. We had contact with a french "anticult group", and they were helpful a lot, until they understood that we researched them and not the "cult". Then they published a message on their webpage that the "cult" had infiltrated the university on Iceland. Some days after they deleted that, I guess that some other "anticult group" who was contacted by us had told them that we researched critisizers of many religious groups. The last emails we received from them was so evil that we should bring them to the police, but that was not the goal for the project and we wanted not to involve us in legal processes.

According to how most christians (including my college) read the bible, I will go to the burning sea when I die, and I suppose Smiths Friends mean the same. I still respect them. If somebody say that when I die will I go to a place where my soul will be transfered to a chicken and my human body be used as buildmaterial for spaceships, I probably will not agree with him, but I will defend his right to believe in it.

You are complete right that I am 'not equipped to discuss the theology of the SF', I can't 'comment other than generally', and have 'nothing to say about the way the girl was sucked into the sect/cult'. Thank you for good expressions in english.

It is unnecessary to discuss theology, because the pattern here is not different from the critizers of scientology, islam and other non-christian groups. It is actually a chance for that your history about this happenings in Owasso is right, and that Smiths Friends have a hidden agenda with their activity. But the complete lack of the values 'objectivity, respect, freedom of believe, integrity and evidence' disqualify you from all trust you need if you really want to make a difference. It will not help to pack the hate into reasonable sentences.

john said...

Islenska:
You agree that you are not an "expert".
You admit that you are not a Christian.
You agree that you are not equipped theologically to expose the false teachings of the SF as propounded in the "holy" texts of their own leaders.
You agree that your pro-cult project was not "science".
Can you tell us which college is this that had a project on "cult criticisers" in Iceland?
If it was only a "project" and it was not "scientific" in its approach, then the "research" you claim you did was "subjective".
Then what you say about "cult critcisers' is only 'opinion'. You have a right to your opinion and you have expressed it here. That's it.
Nobody here is paranoid. This is a discussion forum in which SF people can also participate. But you can see that they cannot answer questions about theology that have been established for centuries. They cannot hide what has happened in Owasso.
You have agreed that: "It is actually a chance for that your history about this happenings in Owasso is right, and that Smiths Friends have a hidden agenda with their activity."
It is not a chance. It really happened. The girl was forced to cut off her relationships with everybody else as part of SF's so- called "missionary work". This is a direct result of SF theologically misinterpreting some of Jesus Christ's sayings.
Everybody and anybody including SF has a right to believe in what they want to believe in and worship whomever they want to, including Satan.
But if a donkey wears a label saying "lion" or wears a "lionskin" and tries to look like a lion, sooner or later it will be exposed for what it truly is.
Theologically, SF believes in a certain heresies and therefore is not 'christian" even if it wears that 'label'. Let it change its label to something like the 'church of scientology' or the 'mormons' or 'jehovah's witnesses' and be honest.
What happened is Owasso is part of the behaviour pattern of the SF which believes in separating and dividing families and hating other Christian churches and other Christians.
Such a behaviour pattern is inevitable because SF has gone into spiritual error at its core by believing that Jesus was only a man who became God (a Hinduistic and Eastern teaching).
Of course, one if free to believe in error. But others are also free to point out error. That is the purpose of this blog.
In the end, many who read this blog are continuously praying for God to deal with the SF and destroy the spirit of error in its theology and its behaviour so that those who believe in SF can become free of its erroneous teachings and its erroneous ways of "making disciples".
Islenska: By the way, do you believe that groups like Al Quaeda or the Ku Klux Klan or the Scientologists have the freedom and right to practice their beliefs and to convert others to their belief system and to control the behaviour of those who unfortunately believe them and become 'disciples'?

Harold said...

Islenska: I admit that I am biased. However, there are also enough witnesses here in Owasso to substantiate my story and more than enough evidence on this blog, I believe, to support my opinion. However, when you use the words like “rumors” and “slandering” then you imply that my words are lies. That’s a pretty bold statement for someone who claims to not know anything about SF, Christianity, or these specific events.

On the other hand, I assume you have read all the SF posts like those from Elf_Assura and Uriah_Heep and come away with the opinion that they are diplomatic and open? I think you are biased as well but I still believe you are entitled to your opinion too, even if you are a SF proxy like John says.

You also claim that I have “filtrated out and denied any information that can balance it”. What information is that? If you are truly isolated from SF and completely objective how could you claim that there is additional information that I denied. If you have something to add please share it. Put it out here so that we can discuss it.

On the subject of right and wrong, you agree that there are some absolutes. That’s good, so do I. You mentioned some vague things like objectivity, respect and integrity. By what standard would you measure these things? If I was hungry would it be OK for me to break into your house and steal your food? I would respect you and your home by not disturbing anything, but just take the food. Surely you would not disrespect me by calling the police would you?

Sophie said...

I was waiting to see if Islenska would respond, but since we’ve not heard from him/her, I decided to proceed with my posts.

Islenska said, “I am not christian, so I can not argument with you about teology, but this destructive blog is not a good advertisement for your own type of christianity.”

I appreciate you admitting that you aren’t a Christian and that you can’t argue about theology. As such, that fact is taken into account along with your opinions. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions and feelings. You are no different. But, since you aren’t a Christian, you probably aren’t familiar with the Bible nor base your opinions on Biblical truths and teachings.

In the New Testament book of Ephesians, chapter 5 vs 11 it says, “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.”

Since this group claims to be the only ones with the truth, the chosen bride of Christ, or more serious Christians, it is reasonable to believe their teachings and behavior would be demonstrative of such. So when it instead reveals behaviors which are all quite contrary to Biblical teachings, Christian beliefs and practices, it is no wonder that attention has been drawn and questions have been asked about this group. It is due to their actions that this blog began in the first place. No one went out searching for someone or something to criticize. And, on the subject of criticism, in this group’s writings one will find they are critical of anyone who doesn’t belong to their group calling them ‘harlots’.

You stated, “your intention is to collect so much negative information about this group as possible, not to discuss how you can really help the people who tell their history.”

I don’t believe it was necessarily the intent to ‘help the people who tell their history’ but rather to learn ‘the truth’ about this group. Although you may not agree, the exposure of the truth will be of great help to those searching for information about this group now or in the future.

Why is the truth so offensive to some people?

If there was a sex offender living in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know it before you let your child play outside? Or if a notorious convicted killer escaped from a nearby prison, wouldn’t you like to know? People should be aware that this man, who teaches in a public high school and has access to young people, claims to be a Christian. Due to the fact that his belief system is not the same as most Christian teachings and has been used to turn at least one of his students against her family and her former friends, is it not the parents’ right and responsibility to know the truth about their children’s (even those of age) teachers?

Sophie said...

“The media has learned to be critical to the religious groups (that is good), but there is almost no critics to the critical networks.”

“The basic critics against the religious groups is brainwashing, manipulation, no tolerance of critics, the thought "we are the ones", twisting information to adapt their world picture. All this symptoms was much easier to documentate in the critic networks than the religious groups.”

Perhaps the reason there are ‘almost no critics to the critical networks’ is that they don’t harm other people by robbing them of personal freedom by intentionally changing their personality, personal and individual interests, desires, dreams, and replacing them with their ‘group think’ mentality. Do these ‘critic networks’ move people into their home or other places and isolate them from their own family and friends in order to indoctrinate them into their ‘own group’ and also benefit from financial gain, sex, or other things? Do these ‘critic networks’ threaten and assault the person’s family and friends in order to split them apart and keep them away from the new recruit? Do these ‘critic networks’ murder people? Do they incite people to fear the outside world including the ones who’ve loved them and raised them so much that they ‘drink the Kool-Aid’ or hole up in some place (physically or mentally) away from outsiders? Do they teach unhealthy world views that cause normal healthy minded individuals to avoid spending time doing things they’ve always done together like vacations, holidays, familial celebrations, and just everyday close relationships with his/her own family and spend it with them instead? Do they keep people so tied up with meetings and/or other activities that it dominates so much time that they don’t have much time left for their OWN desires, interests, friendships, family, etc.

“For people with bad experience from religious groups I will recommend to contact a psychologist or doctor instead to be misused by the participants of this narrow discussion.”

How do you know that one of those who are in this ‘narrow discussion’ is not a psychologist? How are ‘the participants’ misusing anyone?

If one does a little research on this group, it is easy to find that this Owasso situation is not the first for this group. This group has a history of separating loved ones. By digging into SF teachings you will find statements such as:

“Now, in SF, we preach and teach steadfastly the conditions of discipleship mentioned in Luke 14:25-33. Those who are with us are those who have understood these conditions.”

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”

and songs with words such as:

“Friends and family use persuasion;
Comfort for the flesh have they.
Bolt the door! Resist temptation!
All such comfort drive away!”

And another like it is:

“Reason and family ties now break with power.”
“Hatred is required, the hatred drives us forward. Hatred gives us victory in the battle of life. Death to all enemies, I beat without any consideration. There is no peace in this battle.”
“Reason and forms do not count any more, now we are breaking all rules.”
“The spirit gives me light, and inflamed by the spirit of war all human good god things are banned forever. “
“Refuse reason resolutely, come to the circle of brothers.”

With teachings such as these, is it any wonder why relationships with anyone outside of their group are severed?

“In the articles I have readed the defending from the members of Smiths Friends is very diplomatic and open for eventualities, compared with the bombastic condemning of this man and his family.”

Which articles from SF have you read that reveals them being ‘open for eventualities’?

I agree that people should have freedom to believe, but when one knowingly lies in order to get what he/she wants is not Christian. People should have the truth on which to base their beliefs, don’t you agree?

Sophie said...

Funnyman said, “Having said all this I believe that God can touch people’s hearts and lead them to a true repentance. Even the desire to follow Christ is God Given. I do not think there is any one too far down the road to be out of the reach of God’s mercy and grace.”

I, too, agree that God can touch people’s hearts and lead them to a true repentance. We are all sinners who need mercy and grace which is one reason Jesus Christ came to the earth, hung on a cross, died, and rose again, to reconnect us to God.

Romans 8:35-39 says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creations, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

john said...

Was thinking - Yes, the blog is dying. Much has been said. Much remains to be said but there is none willing to say it. And that is what the SF knows will happen. This blog will fall silent and they can go on with their deception and lure simple Christians into servitude to Brunstad and its "lords" and dogma and "strange fire" of doctrine.
The Smith's Friends go on merrily with those they have "converted", getting richer off the fat of the sheep.
And they keep people locked in like this girl victim who was part of SF "missionary work" in Owasso.
By now, she must be part of the baby-making, breeding mission of the SF. That is how they get their numbers to stay steady - convince their women to have lots of babies, stay at home, work in the kitchen with knitting and serving the husband whom they are taught to see and obey as their "Lord".
Poor girl, she will never be able to continue studies properly or be the intelligent women her parents desired her to be. She will never be able to pursue a career of her choice or travel the world or do those things many women are able to do or even have something to do that is of use for the immediate community at large.
May God open her eyes to what has happened to her - instead of being a "prisoner of the Lord" she has become a prisoner of a sect. The problem with such situations is that by the time she opens her eyes, her youth would have disappeared and the opportunities sent her by the Lord also would have disappeared and she would be saddled with babies and she would be stuck for ever!
May God have mercy on all the souls entrapped thus in this group, poor souls who believe that their prison has been made by God Himself.
"And you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free. If the Son (of God) sets you free, you shall be free indeed."

Íslenska said...

Hi all!

I am still alive, and I readed all your posts about "truth". Even if I say I am not a christian you still give me a lot of bible verses that I don't understand something of. It will be a good help also for you if you can separate between religious accuses and secular accuses. So please don't be so generous with the bible texts (perls for pigs?).

Just one thing about Johns part of the Truth with big T: "Poor girl, she will never be able to continue studies properly or be the intelligent women her parents desired her to be. She will never be able to pursue a career of her choice or travel the world or do those things many women are able to do or even have something to do that is of use for the immediate community at large."

In norwegian wikipedia the article about Smiths Friends say that 70% of all members have education higher than upper secondary school. If girls can't take education in the sect, is the babygirls killed so this 70% is all boys? The same article say that a woman is leader for the biggest churchcenter in Norway. I doubt they pay for top leaders without education. So is it true or not that Smiths Friends deny girls to take education? I don't know, because wikipedia can too be wrong (maybe hijacked by Smiths Friends).

On general basis I will say "yes" to most of Sophies questions about critical networks. When a "victim" from a religious group get contact with a critical network like this, he/she get "deprogrammed" with fear about how evil and deceitful his/her family inside the sect is. Then they deny him/her to talk with his family or visit them to avoid him/her to be catch again. With Sophies words: "to avoid spending time doing things they’ve always done together like vacations, holidays, familial celebrations, and just everyday close relationships with his/her own family and spend it with them instead". This is a very exact description, thank you! Our conclusion was that contact with such critical networks is more dangerous for the family relations than the religious group that he/she break with.

Don't misunderstand me. I will not defend a church I not know more than from wikipedia. So far it seem to be like most other religious groups. The big problem in many groups like this is when a member leaves after not agreeing with the church. For the church the normal thing is to say "He is evil, because he don't agree with our believing", and the ex-member say "The church is evil, because they threated me bad". And then if the ex-member say or write something bad about the church, they say: "Yes, we knew he was evil". Then the ex-member say: "They supposed to be my friends? Now they hate me!" In the end something that was a bagatelle is a world-problem for this ex-member and it is very difficult to keep relation to the family and friends inside the group. The key is dialogue, and I hope you agree that this blog is not dialogue. Some gouvernments in Europe has made effort to create dialogue and make people to "agree to disagree". Blogs like this is a obstacle for this work, and it seem that most of the critical groups that we had contact with is not interested in such work and do what they can to stop it.

I hope that this dialogue work can continue and also reach both you guys and Smiths Friends. Maybe in some years we can also get a result when we search with the word "Leave" on their official website?

john said...

Islenska: First of all, you are as anonymous on this blog as anyone else so we have to take your comments with a pinch of salt.
1. You say you have only wikipedia for a guide. If you go back to the history of the SF on Wikipedia you will know that the first entries were made by those who were treated badly by SF and cast out of the group. Later SF editors came in and cleaned up the site. So what you now have is a sanitised version on Wikipedia.
SF has young people who are paid money and food and free lodging in Oslo whose job is to clean up anything on the Internet which does not suit the SF. That is why it is hard to find stories like Owasso on the Internet, though there are hundreds of such stories.
It is not wise to quote Wikipedia to back your arguments. Go read Wiki history, unless that has also been cleaned up beyond a point in time.
2. You said: So far it seem to be like most other religious groups. The big problem in many groups like this is when a member leaves after not agreeing with the church. For the church the normal thing is to say "He is evil, because he don't agree with our believing", and the ex-member say "The church is evil, because they threated me bad". And then if the ex-member say or write something bad about the church, they say: "Yes, we knew he was evil". Then the ex-member say: "They supposed to be my friends? Now they hate me!"
This is sensible. And there must be dialogue.
But you must realise that SF does not want to enter into dialogue with anybody as they believe that ONLY THEY HAVE THE TRUTH.
And their theology is SPURIOUS.
So is their BEHAVIOUR as Owasso demonstrates.
Also, SF members came to this blog but instead of engaging in dialogue they ran away when confronted by the truth and validity of their SPURIOUS THEOLOGY and ANTI-CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR.
You can defend the SF all you want in your IGNORANCE. But it doesn't help.
I would like you to point the blog to the "studies" made by your anti-critical network friends. If it was academic, one must be able to access the study.
Otherwise, I believe you are just mentioning those studies as a ploy to discredit the realities pertaining to the SF on this blog.

Sophie said...

Islenska: “I readed all your posts about "truth". Even if I say I am not a christian you still give me a lot of bible verses that I don't understand something of.”

You said YOU’RE not a Christian, but most of the people writing on here appear to be of the Christian faith and practice. Although Christians don’t claim to be perfect this side of heaven, we recognize our need for God’s grace and a Savior. God speaks to us through His Word, the Bible. Christians are supposed to base our actions on absolutes….obedience to Christ, honesty with our words and actions, unselfishness, loving, respecting, honoring, faithfulness to others even those outside the body of believers, self-control, modesty, and purity just to name a few. Christ also speaks to us through the Holy Spirit that indwells us when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. But God doesn’t contradict His Own Word. So when someone says that God tells them to do things that contrast to what is written in the Bible, it isn’t the Holy Spirit that is speaking to him/her. So my purpose in using Biblical references is to validate a Christian position and beliefs with God’s Word. This SF group claims to be Christian, yet they their behaviors have not been demonstrative of what Scripture teaches.

“So please don't be so generous with the bible texts (perls for pigs?).”

It’s interesting that you used the ‘perls for pigs’. If you can find a Bible, look up Matt 7:6 in the New Testament.

“So far it seem to be like most other religious groups.”

Christianity is a religion based on the beliefs that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, was sacrificed for the sins of all mankind, died a gruesome and painful death on the cross by those who denied who He said He was, buried, and the third day rose again. We also believe that He is preparing a place for His followers in heaven when we no longer are living in our mortal body. Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and we base our living and our faith on it.

The Bible says that Christians will be known by their fruit, Matt.7:15-20.

Galatians 5:22 says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

1 Corinthians 13:4, “LOVE is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

You are entitled to your opinion, but from what I’ve read and seen, SF may be a religion, but it is NOT demonstrative of the religion of Christianity, which is what they claim to be. In fact, they claim to be the ONLY Christians…anyone outside their group, they call harlots.

Christians worship Jesus Christ who came to demonstrate the true nature of God, to love, heal, reconcile, forgive, bestow grace and mercy, show unlimited compassion, kindness, patience, gentleness, and truth. Other religions may worship any number of things from inanimate objects to money to people. Some also teach and practice division, hate, lies, arrogance, fear, and a path to heaven by works rather than by a sacrificial act of a merciful, loving, forgiving, reconciling, grace-filled, patient, and awesome God.

“Blogs like this is a obstacle for this work, and it seem that most of the critical groups that we had contact with is not interested in such work and do what they can to stop it.”

If you’ve noticed, the inquirers don’t seem to have a problem with the discussion, rather it’s the SF members that have been asked some very pointed questions here and they either won’t answer them and/or they try to intimidate by belittling and ridiculing the inquirer and/or they leave the discussion.

Harold said...

John: This girl has not yet conformed to the role of SF baby factory. She graduated Cum Laude from a prestigious university and is working on a Master’s degree. But whether she is making babies or making income it all works for the benefit of SF.

The SF may say that they have been good for her because she has graduated, etc. But it was at home with her parents where she excelled in school and earned her National Merit Scholarship that paid for college. I would like to point out that she earned a full ride scholarship. That is full tuition, housing, and meals. Her parents had committed to paying any fees, books, anything else not covered. She had a car with insurance that was paid for. The girl had money of her own for anything else she wanted to do. The point here is that she did not need to work during college. The only thing she needed to do was keep up her grades for the scholarship and everything else would have been taken care of. She had no need to get a job.

The history is that, while living under the influence of this SF leader, she has maintained several jobs while going to school. It is a testimony to her that she has been able to maintain her grades while working several jobs, but the question that comes with this scenario is this; why did she work when she didn’t need to?

I do believe that there is hope for all who have been affected by this group and even if this blog were to finally die, the whole of it should stay here on the internet for a long long time and may be a source of answers for either those out there reading it now or many others in the future.

Islenska: Thanks for hanging around. I can appreciate your comments about critical groups. The subject of kidnapping cult victims for “deprogramming” is very controversial and one that I don’t support. But I do want to point out that in most cases that I am aware of, like in this case, it is the religious group that has come between the victim and their family. Your description leads one to believe it is the critic network that is separating a victim and their family.

Also, on another note, I have from the very beginning stated my opinion that it is the behavior of cults that define them and not any theology. But religious groups like this use theology to control their members. It is important to understand how they have twisted the scriptures in order to understand that control. And sometimes that has taken this discussion into some of their theology.

Also, as Sophie pointed out, most of the people posting on this blog consider themselves Christian and the source for their beliefs are in the Bible. That would tend to bring lot of scriptures as reference into this discussion, but are these what you refer to as “religious accuses”? Can you define “secular accuses” as well? I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

I have tried to dialog with you and express my view of things without getting into theology but so far I get the idea that you want to avoid that too.

Millard said...

Wow! It's going to take a while to read through all this.

A friend pointed me to this post. I just wanted you to be aware that I'm here and willing to offer perspective if it helps. I was in SF from 1978 through 1993, but got out as a result of a defamatory campaign that cost me my marriage.

Things have changed a lot since then, such as the group becoming transparently money-hungry. On the other hand, it has also become more "mainstream" than it used to be. For example, televisions were frowned upon when I was in the group and you wouldn't find one in the house of anyone who was considered "faithful". They seem to be less isolated now. If this trend keeps up, they are going to have a more difficult time explaining how they are the only "true" Christian church. ;)

Let me know if I can help.

Millard

just me said...

Hey Millard , I agree 100% with you on that comment about how they going to be able to say they are the real church, I still have some respect for them , and lots of other church , but its very hard to understand churchs in these last days , I guess Jesus have to come soon cause this world is horrible. thanks for your comment Millard.

Keith said...

Millard: Thanks for stopping by. As you can see, this "discussion" has been going on for quite some time, and has had its share of participants/characters. All comments are welcome, all I ask is the dialog be honest and respectful.

To the other faithful posters/readers: I have not abandoned this blog...actually this one post is only part of many other posts that make up my personal blog. This post just happens to have garnered the most comments to date. Anyway, I still monitor things around here; I've just been preoccupied with work, church, etc. Keep the comments coming--and thanks for playing nice.

Blessings.

Friedrich said...

I have read this blog with interest and I am thankful that the true image of the Smith's Friends (SF) is revealed.
I do not care their theology, but I strongly criticize their behavior. I all my life I never have experienced as many lies as from this group:
1.) When my wife and I tried to help an Austrian mother in court whose daughter had been “stolen” by the SF and married to a "brother" in Norway, the SF tried to discredit us by claiming that we had been in Norway and tried to investigate the house where the young Austrian lady lived. Obviously they wanted to accuse us to prepare a kidnapping. But we never had been at that place. They handed a false testimony to the court which you can see in German at http://griess.st1.at/torpo.htm and in Norwegian at http://griess.st1.at/vitnesb.jpg .

2.) Our daughter had been recruited by a good looking young man of the SF whom she fell in love with. This he had done with several girls. After he finally married one, my wife called the owner of the restaurant where the wedding party took place, just to tell him what kind of people they were. The SF claimed that my wife was so eager that the young man should marry our daughter that she phoned the owner in order to reserve the restaurant for this opportunity.

3.) I was invited to a talk show about cults in German TV. When I came to Munich, I was made aware that I should appear as “Wilhelm Hofer”. I protested because I had been several times in Austrian TV with my real name, but the TV management insisted, for legal reasons, on the false name. The SF know this. Nevertheless they distribute a brochure where they accuse me for lying about my name: http://griess.st1.at/contra8.jpg .

Also I know several cases where the SF have contributed to split families.
More in German about the SF at http://griess.st1.at/sf.htm

Sophie said...

Millard: Thanks for your offer to share your perspective. Can you expound on what you mean by ‘defamatory campaign’ that cost you your marriage?

To all: I recently ran across an unrelated (I think) but, interesting story with many similarities to this one about a teenage girl named Heather Meucci from Waterford, Connecticut who began attending a former neighbor’s home church. The ‘church’ family Coleen and James Bansemer aided in moving this young girl into their home and then declared in a letter that they ‘were only trying to help Heather’.

Some excerpts from the article include:

“Heather, aided by members of the Bansemer family, ran away under cover of darkness to live with Coleen and James Bansemer on a small family compound the Bansemers maintain in a suburban area of Colchester.”

“Early the next morning, when the Meuccis awoke, Heather was gone. Gary and Judy Meucci drove to the Bansemers' home. They called Colchester police, who told Heather to return home. The Bansemers picked her up again later that day.”

“God knows my heart is broken over this situation with you people and Heather,” she (Coleen Bansemer) wrote.”

“Do you really believe I choose to have Heather live with us over you?" Coleen Bansemer wrote.”

“In a letter to the Meuccis written two days after Heather left home, Coleen Bansemer blames Judy Meucci for driving Heather away. She also berates Judy Meucci for refusing her daughter's requests to take part in religious services at the Bansemers' home.”

“Heather asked you several times to join us. You flat out refused, but you nevertheless decided to form a negative opinion of us and tried to convince Heather of the same,” Coleen Bansemer wrote. “But she saw things for what they were and tried to get you to do the same. And now you're in the situation you're in because of your irresponsible actions.”

She also states in the letter that she would like to see Heather reunited with her family “and possibly even being able to return home.”

If she was really heartbroken over the situation and really would like to see Heather reunited with her own family, why did they aide her in running away? Why did they (Bansemers) go pick her up and take her back to their house? And why did the Bansemers continue to have her (Heather) living in their home against her family’s wishes? And why was Coleen Bansemer blaming and berating the mom of this girl? None of those are Christian behaviors and actions. If this girl was being abused in any form or fashion, then state social services should have been contacted. It wasn’t this family’s place to come between this girl and her parents. But from the sounds of witnesses and also the beginning of the article, that wasn’t the case.

“With the help of the Bansemers, Heather has applied for emancipation, according to a petition filed by her on April 7 in juvenile court. That move would sever all legal ties with her parents.”

“The Meuccis say they fear emancipation would enable Heather to marry Jesse, the Bansemers' 23-year-old son. They are particularly worried because the Bansemers' daughters were married by the time they were 18 to older men, the Meuccis said.”

Sophie said...

Why would anyone interfere in a relationship between a young person (regardless of age) and his/her own parents? There was a testimony on another internet site also connected to this story written by a man named Robert whose two sons (the two older men married to the daughters??) also got involved with the Bansemers and then were married to the Bensemer’s two daughters. They, too, now have a broken relationship with their father.
Other quotes from the story include:

“It's like my daughter has been legally kidnapped,” Gary Meucci said.

“Not long ago, Judy Meucci said, she and Heather were close and her daughter was an open, happy teenager.”

“I can't tell you how heartbroken we are over this, how worried we are about our daughter. They have torn us apart completely. My whole family.”

To read the story in its entirety, go to http://www.theday.com/article/20060425/DAYARC/304259979

In the articles, this Bansemer family, has been labeled a ‘cult’ not because of its ‘religious beliefs’, but due to the exhibition of behaviors characteristically common to cultic groups. Although religious cults do twist scriptures in order to gain desired outcomes such as separating one from his/her God-given biological family, I would have to agree with Friedrich when he says, “I do not care their theology, but I strongly criticize their behavior. I all my life I never have experienced as many lies as from this group”.

Outward behaviors exhibited are indicative of what one has been taught and surrounded with. Due to the fact that many people from various SF groups have witnessed lying and splitting families apart, it only stands to reason that this is a taught and learned behavior. Those behaviors alone are so against what God mandates and what Christ represents. Christianity is about love, kindness, compassion, responsibility for one’s own actions, honesty, patience, faithfulness, loyalty, honoring, and caring for one’s own family, reconciliation, truth, self-control, loving God and loving others.

Harold said...

Fredrick: Thanks for taking an interest in our discussion. I have read your story and some of the material on your web site. The similarities of your experience with this local fellowship are worth noting because it is sometimes hard to tell if this local SF leader is a rouge out there using SF for his purpose or if he is just another cog in the SF machine. Although some of the details are different, the behaviors are consistent like the arrogant attitude and the malice towards others who question them. The lies and deceits are worse than the politicians in this country.

I myself continue to be amazed at how a group that claims to be Christian can behave in such a un-Christ-like way. I think that C. S. Lewis explains this in his book ‘Mere Christianity’ when he says:

“When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.”

In other words, the more self centered, or narcissistic, people become the more they are able to justify immoral acts as righteousness because they have put all thought of others out of their minds. They can lie, cheat, and steal, and in the next moment claim to have victory over sin, and make statements like Kare Smith when he says “we can share in heavenly glory while we are still here on earth”.

I believe that the fundamental change in people who become Christians is when they understand the depravity of their human condition and realize that we all need a savior called Jesus Christ. To follow Jesus Christ is to think of others before yourself. After all, He chose to die for us when He didn’t have to. That was the ultimate selfless act.

Millard said “If this trend keeps up, they are going to have a more difficult time explaining how they are the only "true" Christian church.”

What could they do to make things more clear? I think that they have a hard time explaining that as it is. We don’t need to wait for anything else, do we?

Sophie: Thanks for sharing that story with us. The similarities to the Owasso story are striking. Did you notice Mrs. Bansemer’s twisted logic when she blames the girl’s family for their problems; “And now you're in the situation you're in because of your irresponsible actions.” Like she (Mrs. Bansemer) had nothing to do with anything.

Millard said...

Sophie,

The defamatory campaign consisted of certain leaders telling members that I was influenced by an "evil spirit" and that the members would be "infected" if they associated with me. Even my children were told that I was in an "evil spirit." This occurred over the course of a 12-18 months. They tried to pin an esoteric heresy on me early on, but it was inappropriate and I made it clear that I didn't hold the doctrine in question. My sin? I spoke up about specific teachings and attitudes that were harmful and got pissed off by the hypocrisy I encountered the more I spoke up. I wasn't a nice guy about it. SF latched onto my confrontational approach and my anger as proofs of malicious intent. Of course, most people stopped associating with me. This proved to be too much for my wife. We were divorced in 1996. I retained custody of our 6 children.

I'm very interested in your, John's and Harold's interest in SF. The time and energy you put into your posts seem to come from more than just curiosity.

One of the favorite tactics of SF and other groups I'm aware of is the "ad hominem" attack: personalize everything. Every criticism of doctrine or behavior gets re-framed as a malicious, personal attack on SF and its members. Suddenly, the issue isn't the problem or the question that the "opposer" (their term) raised, but rather the maliciousness of "the opposer" which is PRESUMED, not demonstrated. This puts the burden on "the opposer" to prove his innocence before anyone will listen to what he has to say. Of course, the only way to prove your innocence is to recant your criticism or complaint.

This all follows pretty naturally from a perspective that intensely and literally believes, "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." 1 John 5:19 I should say, it follows naturally when you couple that perspective to plenty of fear. Of course, they take "the whole world" to be everything that is not SF. This was a little easier to swallow 15-25 years ago, before being "of God" became such big business for them.

tbc...

Millard said...

(... continued)

SF is not the only religious group that has adopted a narcissistic, paranoid perspective. The more exclusive and "catholic" (="universal") a religious group gets, the more such pathological patterns of thought and behavior seem to be factors. This is one reason that I shy away from branding SF or any other group as a "cult." The term is simplistic and can be misleading. There are plenty of cultish characteristics in mainstream religions. These are no less destructive in a group that we are loathe to label as a "cult" and no more destructive in a group that we do label as such. I think it's more helpful and instructive to talk about specific characteristics instead of branding a group this or that and then proceeding as if we all know what that means. Not even the cult experts have a widely accepted definition of "cult." I think that part of the difficulty is that once you remove the characteristics shared by groups that we don't want to label as cults, the definition of "cult" becomes either too extreme to be useful, or it becomes too general to mean much.

One of the notions that was most helpful for me in my "exit" process--and you can believe that it takes a process--was "free flow of information." This became almost a litmus test for me in all kinds of situations, on a personal level and on more formal and organizational levels. No good comes from manipulating information flow. Lots of good comes from allowing information to flow naturally and freely. SF and lots of other groups are notable for the way that they restrict information flow. They do it by direct influence or intervention, but more importantly by setting the context for restricted information flow through doctrine and social conditioning. An easy example of a technique is the "us-them" scenario that they portray using a variety of Biblical justifications. When the only valid, trustworthy source of information is from within the group, and more precisely from group leadership, it's easy to keep people captive. This gets reinforced by their underlying fear of becoming tainted or corrupted by "the world." However, now that they have opened Brunstad to exactly the kind of influences that they preached against for decades as the work of Satan, (e.g., see "Horses and Disco At Brunstad" in a recent issue of the local newspaper at http://tb.no/kultur/hest-og-disco-pa-brunstad-1.3551064,) it's hard to see how they can continue to use doctrine of separation from the world (in vogue when I was in the group) as a method to control information flow. Maybe they will have to relax control a bit, which would be a good thing.

All for now. I look forward to getting to know more about you all. :)

Millard

Harold said...

Millard: You make a good point about using the term “cult”. A psychologist friend of mine prefers the term “coercive group”.

I have talked in the past about the fact that there are discipleship groups within churches of mainline denominations that can be described as a cult. Jim Jones himself came from a Disciples of Christ background. Not all cult groups are religious in nature nor do they all live on some isolated compound.

So I agree that we need to be careful how and when to use that label, but on the other hand we shouldn’t be afraid to use it when it fits either.

You expressed an interest in my participation here and I will only say that I know the family involved. I also know other families in this community that have been harmed by this group as well. I believe this is not a singular matter with this one girl but that this is a community issue. This man is a teacher in the high school and as such has an influence on our young people and therefore this matter demands a thorough investigation to understand the thoughts and beliefs of this man.

I think you will agree that the real, deep down, beliefs of this group are not published on their web site. So this blog has been very helpful in bringing to light their real beliefs. Like you said a “free flow of information”.

Giving it to god said...

I really don't know how to put off the anger I feel towards the smith's friends.......I'd be able to do it if they apologized like all of salem fellowship appologized to me but they aren't ever going to do that.....and it's hard for me to forget them cause the impact they had in a bad way in every way socially spiritually every way, I deal with every day. colossians 3:8 "but now ye also put off all these; anger.........." I can put it off today but it's hard it's hard to just put off, put off, put off that anger, I'm confronted with feelings of anger towards the smith's friends every time I battle giving into the lusts of the flesh, whenever I consider oh I still have 0 friends I lost the few social skills I had left at the smith's friends......really it's more then that that cult is so different then the rest of the world, learning how to be around regular people I'm struggling being able to do that.
Struggling to fit in in the real body of christ to, mainstream christianity is way way way way different then the smith's friends.
I don't fit yet anywhere and it's just ruff. Though I will continue to go to my mainstream christian bible study, pry tommorow matter of fact though I missed this weekends service (we rearranged some furniture, got new bookshelf style headboard, made a reading nook in our bedroom it's so cool : ) I've already sat on the green chair in their and read the bible ----- it's worked out good perfect spot to read : ) least I know where I'm reading a good book or two : )

Friedrich said...

Millard: I agree that we should not split up the world in cults and non-cults. This would be cultic in itself (black/white). I prefer to use lists of marks. The more the properties of a movement agree to the list, the more cultic it is. A very good list of marks I found at the Bayrisches Landesjugendamt [Bavarian State Youth Welfare Office], Reference: http://www.blja.bayern.de/themen/jugendschutz/sekten/TextOfficesStrukturmerkmale.html

Marks that for so called cults and psychogroups could be classified to be harmful for children.
According to my opinion, 14 of the 15 questions have, for the SF, to be answered by “yes”, as follows:

1. Has foreign influence ordered by the group any precedence of parental education?
Yes. You must obey more God and the leading brothers installed by him than the parents, especially if the parents are not members of the group.

2. Are children and youngsters socially isolated by the cult-controlled education, with the consequence to put them into an outsider role
Yes. The world is basically bad; therefore you must keep away from it. Good children only have friends within the movement, except for demonstration purpose.

3. Are methods applied that are inadequate for the age, or psycho techniques (for example hard meditation, auditing)?
Yes. Also small children must sit quietly at services of several hours

4. Will individual requirements of children and youngsters, corresponding to their age, be suppressed (for example aggressions or own initiative)? Will already children only be considered as possibly especial hopeful function bearers of the group and not as individuals?
Yes. From small on, the “bad own will” of children must be suppressed. Children from families of the “Smiths Friends” are considered to be especially well-behaved at school, but little initiative and creative: To play, earlier was considered as a waste of time; only during the last years they have started to organise possibilities for playing and sport within the group, because of fear that it otherwise would be searched outside.

5. Are already children exploited emotionally, ideally and materially (overstrain for example by fundraising or other work, sexual exploitation, special responsibilities, “surrender of life” or other types of self-sacrifice) or are they systematically neglected (because they prevent the “spiritual development” of adults)?
Yes. Youngsters, after having completed the compulsory school, are incited for months or even years to do “voluntary work” for Brunstad, and thus are prevented to have further education. See also point 15.

6. In education, will inspiring with fear and guilt be used (karma guilt, threat by demons or satanic powers, last judgement, condemnation)?
Yes. The Last Judgement may be tomorrow and God will immediately punish any disobedience.

7. Will already children be treated by exorcism? (“liberation services”, penance exercises, ritual exercises to keep clean)? No.

8. Is there any extreme harshness in education by corporal punishment, submission, withdrawal of love, withdrawal of personal freedom, extra-work, compulsory meditation)?
Yes. Until flogging was forbidden by law, it was mandatory with reference to the Bible. Now they deny it, but according to witnesses it is further applied. Submission under the leading brothers is also mandatory for adults.
(to be continued)

Friedrich said...

(continuation)
9. Do they teach rigid prefabricated thinking structures (for example enemy images) already to children which they cannot refuse without being punished? Is such indoctrination supported by the cult’s own language?
Yes. “The world” and especially “the religious ones” are the enemy images. “They hate us” wrote Kåre J. Smith in his book "Hyrde og Profet" (“Shepard and prophet”), published 2005.

10. Is there any totalitarian style of leadership in family and education, questioning democratic rights from the very beginning or aims to remove them (obedience in command, principle of leadership, intolerance, fanaticism, no free forming of opinion, and no participation in democratic life)?
Yes. Songs as: Hatred is necessary, hatred gives us progress, and hatred gives us victory in the battle of life, Death for all enemies, I beat ruthlessly, there is no peace in this battle! Reason and family ties now break with violence! No longer are reason and form important, we now break any rules! Reason definitely reject, come to the circle of brothers! … demonstrate this (translations from a German songbook). Elections are something “worldly” which they don’t take care for. There were appeals to "kill apostates" and to "destroy all churches".

11. Do they already teach children a totally unrealistic or insane understanding of reality (for example insane ideas of end-time, “UFO”-cults, persecution complex caused by revelations or visions)?
Yes. In Norway, a girl went to the cinema, which was forbidden. Suddenly she got fear that Jesus could have come in the meantime to fetch the others and left her behind. In wild fear, during the show she ran out from the cinema. It was raining and nobody was to be seen. The fear increased: “He has taken all with him and left me behind.” Also adults believed that Elias Aslaksen (top leader from 1943 until 1976) may be lifted up to heaven alive because of his holiness.

12. Is the psycho-sexual development disturbed or prevented by anti sexual, asexual or in contrary by perverse or especially permissive attitudes or practices?
Yes. If a boy talks to a girl who is not his sister and he is not engaged with (and still worse in the opposite case), this is considered to be “whoring”. I have proves that brides learned on the engagement day whom they will be engaged to.

13. Are health provisions and medical treatment restricted (rules for food, visit of doctors, special cultic importance of health and sickness, usage of drugs, “faith healing”, exorcism)?
Yes with respect to treatment of psychological disorders. They should keep away from psychologist, they warn against psycho-pharmaceuticals.

14. Does the role of the woman (as a model especial for girls) contradict in a severe manner the generally acknowledged status of women of today?
Yes. The woman has to serve, to wash the floor and, if married, to give birth to children. A leader expressed the opinion that a woman does not need to learn reading and writing. Of course there are always individual examples to "prove" the contrary.

15. Which position has school education and professional perspectives (has missionary work and cult-specific “religious” or “spiritual” development absolute preference, what about violation of school attendance)?
Yes. The children go to public schools, but are prevented to participate at special trainings. In general, one should not strive to “higher” things. They say that they better learn by life than by school. See also point 5.

Result: 14 Yes, 1 No
Friedrich

Just be yourself said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just be yourself said...

I don't have time to read through all these posts...I am very informed of the "Brunstad" church as I am in a relationship with someone who was born into this organization and who decided to leave this church in his early 30's. I have no time for ANY religious organization that use scare tactics & stipulations on "their people" and that is exactly what most church do...an organization of people who are looking for something to explain this world when really all they need to do is look inside themselves and find their soul, then...live a life full of love and kindness. I will argue to you until you are blue in the face with regards to " love & kindness" and these types of organizations. Do you think for one minute that my partners family and friends that are still involved in this church show him kindess for leaving the church hahahahaha very funny! No, some do not speak to him at all and the ones that do, only do with words to try and get his previously brainwashed mind thinking that he will go to hell if he does not return or that he will not be a part of the "Bride" Give me a flip'n break! Be yourself 100% and do what makes you HAPPY! and if that is being involved in an organization, then go for it! But no one has the right to tell anyone how to live their only life on this earth. ONLY ALLOW YOURSELF TO CONTROL YOU...NO ONE ELSE CAN UNLESS YOU ALLOW IT.
To end this post, please know that my partner has never been happier...like a load of bricks lifted from his shoulders allowing him to be himself...which is what everyone deserves.
That is what this universe is all about...love and be loved... and if someone or some group tells you how to without going to hell...drop them! period!
Hell is on earth people...open your eyes!
Oh...one last note regarding the amazing SF/Brunstad...
My partner married young without even knowing the woman he married, they didn't even date! You then are to have children...the more the better and if you don't, then you are questioned why...
My partners children are not allowed to leave the "compound" with him, he has to visit them with a church member present whether they are in the room or watching from a distance.
My partner is a good man, works very hard and has a huge heart...yet his children are only allowed to experience this good man through supervised visits...makes sense? I think not. They are also told to keep praying for him to come home and that every prayer goes into gods bucket and when it's full, it will empty and all wishes will come true. (it's been 4 years and I'm sure a lot of prayers)
Nice...that, I would consider child abuse through brainwashing. Like I said....bring it on and I will argue with you until you are blue in the face that this organization is one full of love and kindness....sorry, it is one full of love and kindness if you follow their docterine...one step to the right or left and you'll know it!
To end this, I am happy to say that with much counselling...he is now on the road to a full recovery and enjoying his real life full of love and kindess without the ruler being smacked across his knuckles.
That!...is what everyone deserves.

Millard J Melnyk said...

Thanks Harold for your response. I've been out of the loop for so long, (the group in Seattle makes sure of that,) that I have little info apart from what I hear from my sons who have also disengaged from the group. It helps me to know what kind of contact a person has had with the group.

Friedrich, excellent information! I like that list. It gets to the real issues. Dogma is just a manipulation tool for groups like this. Taking their doctrine seriously assumes integrity that they don't possess and that their leaders don't intend to possess. It's all about the effects, which is why I expect Kaare Smith to start changing dogma, if he hasn't already.

The story you told about the girl running out of the cinema in a panic is becoming dated. Things seem to be changing. Entire families in Seattle attend movies now. The Seattle group used to be considered the more conservative of the groups on the West Coast. Movie-going and TV seem completely accepted now. Enough divorces have happened in SF over the last decade or two that I expect traditional SF doctrines making divorce taboo will be relaxed, too.

The story of the girl in the cinema is actually an illustration of item #7 about exorcism. I agree that children are not subjected to rituals of exorcism. However, SF teachings and social conditioning actually turn the entire waking life of a serious member into a kind of exorcism.

At any point in time, a serious member is faced with the choice of serving God or serving his "flesh," which is to say serving Satan and demonic forces that empower "the flesh." The member's choice determines whether the Holy Spirit or some other "spirit" aligned with his "flesh" has control of him. This is a kind of ongoing, non-stop exorcism. SF and other Christian groups teach that every person starts out as a "sinner" in the power of fleshly lusts, and so, in the power of Satan. SF further teaches that, even after he or she has been forgiven for "sins," the member must put forth extreme effort to escape from "sin in the flesh" and remain in a pure state. Otherwise he or she will fall back into "sin."

It is hard for those who have not lived under such intense pressure to understand what it is like. What the girl experienced in the cinema and out in the empty road is very familiar to me. I wouldn't say that pre-teenage children experience that kind of thing often, but they are certainly in an environment that supports it. The more serious-minded teenagers experience it, and those who are not so serious are aware of it and affected by it. As life responsibilities increase, the pressure to "do God's will" and "cleanse yourself" increases. Ironically, the more healthy SF members are the ones who do NOT take this "way through the flesh" so seriously. The more hypocritical they are, the happier they are.

I put many of the terms used by SF in quotes because they are truly undefined. Just try getting clear, concise, non-circular definitions for those terms from a member. At least it's fun to try! ;)

A comment on #13. Although SF publicly looks down on pharmaceuticals, I personally knew many in the group who took anti-depressants. If others even knew about it, (you can be sure that the "leading brother" knows,) this would be a certain sign of that person's weakness in faith, etc. Wow. Depress 'em, then depress 'em again for trying to cope with the depression... The tragedy is that none of this is constructive and all of it is unnecessary.
I've also heard that SF's long-standing prohibition against birth control is being relaxed as well. To confirm this by asking a member would get nowhere. A better indicator would be a relative LACK of emphasis in regular preaching on "accepting all the children" and the evils of tampering with God's business in that department. We used to hear those points stressed regularly in the 80s and early 90s preaching.

john said...

Millard: My interest lies in looking deeper at the heretical teachings that are recorded in the writings of the "fathers" of this movement. I believe that heretical teachings lead to the paranoid us/them behavior of the group and also behavior based on wrong interpretation. For instance, the wrong interpretation of the verse "Hate your father, etc" which the group uses to destroy family ties with. Sophie's example is an exact replica of what goes on in SF and how they justify every marriage and family relationship that they help break "for the sake of the true gospel'.
The heresy which underlies all the teachings of this group is that Jesus was only a man on earth. This is a heresy that the Body of Christ (not the 'only Body of Christ' in Brunstad and its affiliates) has had to counter in many forms throughout history. And it has always been discovered and exposed. Arius lost the battle and it is impossible for heretic groups - who believe that Jesus was a 'created' being and "only a man" who then "cleansed himself of his own sin" like yogis to "become God" - to understand the Nicene Creed where Jesus is confessed as "being of one substance with the Father". That is, he never had broken connection because of sin with the Father and never had to cleanse himself of sin which is what SF believes.
CONTD

john said...

This pernicious doctrine has appeared over and over again and closer to our times the great precher Edward Irving also fell into this error. Irving was a forerunner of the charismatic movement and preached that Christ had a sinful flesh just like the SF. In his time, he was isolated. The SF is arrogant and bold because they have become rich and have brought together some thousands of people who believe this heresy and forged them into a "sect" with cultistic behaviors. In fact, why SF wanted to destroy Zac Poonen was because he saw how they had hid their heresy and slyly proselytised under the guise of being "evangelical" and "non-denominational", pretending to be mainstream Christians while actually undermining Christ and Christian churches and individual faith. SF believes that now because they have lots of money and they are many they can propagate their heresy in an organised "missionary" manner just like the Mormons much more easily and acceptably. But the heresy lies within because the core leadership in Brunstad or every church (the 'responsible brothers') all are one in believing this heresy however well they hide it or pretend not to believe it.
Irving's life was a disaster after he became captive to this "spirit" that teaches that Jesus was a man with sinful flesh who became God. He wrote: Christ's human nature was sinful and corrupt and his striving against these corruptions was the main part of his conflict ...or else, what make you of those passages in the Psalms "Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me that I am not able to look up."
This is the type of confused inter- pretation of the Word of God that SF also indulges in. And poor simple souls are misled by and entrapped in this sect. How much ever whitewash Kare Smith puts over this sect, in the end he will never go against the "fathers'" teachings for SF fears deeply that if they go against those teachings of JO Smith, Bratlie, Aslaksen, Trygve Sandvik and others, they will be damned. So while they change their skins and colors in outer things like TV, sports, etc, they will never dare to go against the core teaching and will only make it a secret doctrine for those who are utterly loyal and trustworthy, the INNER CIRCLE. The rest are just being manipulated in their innocence and spiritual ambition to be holy.

RssnSpy6 said...

Hello,

to just me:

I had been quite busy for awhile and didn't notice when you moved away. I'm sorry that you moved away. Since I didn't know how you were introduced to SF it was interesting to hear your story. I still remember the first time I met you and you told that story about that huge moose while snowmobiling. I hope things work out for you and you can find rest and fellowship in Jesus, for He is true, even though you have such doubts about churches.

to Millard Melnyk:

It was also interesting to read your story from your perspective. I remember fairly well some of what you describe as "pissed off" and "confrontational anger". Would you agree with the following statement for yourself? [Since I've been "out of the loop for so long" I don't know the current 'doctrines' or 'teachings' regarding what SF believes. I am going on what I experienced before 1993 and much may have changed.]

SF is a church that is in a development. Just because things happened in the past doesn't mean they continue. Just because something was preached in the past does not mean it is/was right. As an example: We can agree (possibly) that our parents grew up in a much more strict North American environement. Teachers in schools were allowed to spank children and rap their knuckes with rulers. When society realized that this behavior wasn't profitable for the children it was stopped. How children are brought up in the church and the use of electronic media (tv for example) are in constant re-examination. Although that is a very simple example it is the same with 'doctrines' in the SF. Things and general ideas evolve with the age of generations and things don't always go perfectly. What is important is that when all is said and done that we do what we do out of obedience to God and a love for our fellow man. And that when we are shown to be in error we change from our ways.

I appreciate your calm approach to your criticism of SF, but I think much of your information is dated because you've been separated from them so long. Also, your statement "Enough divorces have happened in SF over the last decade or two that I expect traditional SF doctrines making divorce taboo will be relaxed, too." As long as the Bible teaches that God hates divorce and the Apostle Paul teaches that a man is not to divorce his wife/a wife should not separate from her husband, then the SF will preach that.

to Just be yourself:

You wrote very nicely about living in a world of "love & kindness". I would like to live in that world but I would venture to guess that many, if not most, christians would disagree with your way to get there [... do what makes you HAPPY].

RssnSpy6 said...

In response to Friedrich's list:

I disagree with many of your 'yes' votes to those questions. It seems as if you are basing your answers on a 1980's-1990's German timeframe of SF. There was a strong movement at that time to be 'separate and pure' from the evil influences of the world. There is still a preaching to be in connection with God in the day instead of allowing bad things into hearts and minds. Are we able to agree that there are in fact evil spirits in the world and influences that draw people away from good to evil? Aren't most christian children expected to sit quietly in church? My point is that there may have been examples of your 'yes' answers in SF but they are not what is preached or globally practiced.

Could you tell me what song number/song book you translated?

to john:

Your understanding of SF doctrine regarding Jesus is not correct. You have put upon the SF the connections you make with eastern doctrines regarding the ascendance of human to God. There are no ties to eastern doctrines in SF. Please read (http://www.brunstad.org/en/Faith-and-Life/What-is-Christianity-/Who-is-Jesus-.htm) which is what SF believes about Jesus: (an excerpt below)

True God and true man
Many people deny the divinity of Jesus. They will argue that He was nothing more than a human being among other people, albeit one that we can look to as the ideal example.
In the Koran, Jesus is mentioned as a great prophet who performed miracles and had a gospel for the people. Among Christians, the belief in Jesus as the Son of God is central. However, perceptions vary when it concerns Jesus as both God and man. Many people also regard Jesus as divine in the years that He lived among the people, and therefore had no battle against the sin that is found in human nature. However, we believe that when Jesus was in heaven, He was true God. When Jesus was here on earth, He was true man. He was born into the world, at a set time, as a human being with the same nature as we have. He had the Holy Spirit dwelling within. He was reminded by the Spirit, and was obedient to the Spirit's guidance. His work on earth was to defeat all the sin found in His human nature. When this was completed, He returned to God. The evangelist John writes in chapter 14 of his gospel about how Jesus promised the disciples that they would receive the Holy Spirit, so they could also receive strength and help to keep His commandments.

john said...

Welcome Back, Russian. Surprise, surprise. I hope you won't get infected by the spirit of the "harlots" here. :-)
1. It is interesting to hear you say that IT JUST MIGHT BE POSSIBLE FOR SF TO CORRECT ERRORS IT HAS COMMITTED. Well, well, well. Kudos. What that means is that the prayers of many which are focused on this "sect" coming to its senses are being answered by our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ and these concentrated prayers will continue UNTIL SF ACKNOWLEDGES ITS ERRORS - THEOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL - and turns to the truth to God's glory. It will save many souls.
2. However, it is interesting to see how your mind remains perfectly conditioned by the central group "doctrine".
You said: "When Jesus was here on earth, He was true man. He was born into the world, at a set time, as a human being with the same nature as we have."
This is the ERROR. The Jews took up stones to kill Him because he said: BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM (not I WAS). The Jews wanted to kill Him because they KNEW that HE WAS STATING WITHOUT AMBIGUITY THAT HE WAS EQUAL TO GOD ON EARTH.
Jesus was not comparing himself to "adopted children" who have the Holy Spirit.
I do not want to go here into more discussion here about the DEITY of Christ while He was on earth; it has been discussed much and anyone who has had Christ revealed to Him would instantly confess like Peter: YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD.
On the Mount of Transfiguration, he was shown to be above Moses and Elijah (who were both led by the Spirit) to be the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
The teaching that he was just some other human being IN SIN who had to CLEANSE HIMSELF OF HIS OWN SIN is a "spirit" from the East where such teachings and practices abound and where the goal of so many humans who are IN SIN is to cleanse themselves and BECOME ONE WITH GOD or become God itself.
Tat Tvam Asi or Aham Brahmasmi.
SF has the same spirit only this spirit comes "in the name of Jesus".
Matthew 24
4Jesus answered them, Be careful that no one misleads you [deceiving you and leading you into error]. 5For many will come in (on the strength of) My name {appropriating the name which belongs to Me], saying, I am the Christ (the Messiah), and they will lead many astray.
Is it possible that Eastern spirits got hold of JO Smith and Bratlie and others who believe in the man Jesus who became God (another avatar) and they being ignorant and naive (theologically speaking, which is something SF is proud of too) of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Sanskrit or Pali would never have been able to distinguish what these spirits which had entered them were teaching which is that while Jesus was on earth HE WAS UNEQUAL TO GOD.
"I am from above, ye are from below."
"And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."
May God open your eyes to the deity of Jesus WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH in the form of a man.

RssnSpy6 said...

to john:

We disagree about who Jesus is and what He did while on earth. Fine. But you are telling me what I (SF) believe, and you are not correct.

The excerpt I shared said, "...a human being with the same nature as we have...His work on earth was to defeat all the sin found in His human nature. "

You interpreted that to mean, "...he was just some other human being IN SIN who had to CLEANSE HIMSELF OF HIS OWN SIN."

There is a distinct difference between SF beliefs and your interpretation of SF beliefs. We know that Jesus did not sin, so when SF says He shared human nature with us it doesn't mean he sinned. To sin, as James writes, is to agree with lust/desire which brings forth sin. So Jesus never agreed with or committed the lusts and desires in His nature but rather did the will of God. Do you see the difference?

john said...

Dear Russian
Jesus was not James or Paul or you or me.
The mistake is to turn things around and make Jesus follow James or Paul or you or me.
Get the difference?
For instance, do the verses in Romans 7: 18, 24 - does this apply to Jesus? Was this Jesus' experience?
Do clarify.

RssnSpy6 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RssnSpy6 said...

to john:

I will try to clarify.
What James, the disciple of Jesus, wrote, was the inspired word of God. Jesus is also that Word because He lived it on earth. I'm quite sure James wrote what he did because it was revealed in Jesus life and God through the holy spirit opened his eyes to see it. The Bible is true for all time, whether the words were written after Jesus' life or prophesied about Him before.

in regards to Romans 7:18-24:
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

This is Paul's personal testimony of how he found his daily circumstances. Paul had tasted sin. He had, as Jesus never had, agreed with lusts and desires and sinned. Jesus, when He was faced with a human lust or desire always said no and prayed to God for strength and power to overcome the lust or desire. Paul's testimony is something we today should find very near to our experience because we want to love and do good but our nature wants to live for only our own good.

Millard J Melnyk said...

John, thanks for your comments. You make some good points. I agree with Russian that you misrepresent SF doctrine somewhat. If I were to characterize SF teaching on Jesus' nature, I would say that they try to balance out mainstream Christian teachings, which SF believes overemphasize Jesus' divinity. Their intent isn't to make him merely human, but to fully recognize his humanity.

I'm glad you brought up the Nicene Creed, that doctrinal icon of mainstream Christianity. I was at a good friend's wedding reception in Arcadia, CA in the late 70s when I met one of his friends. In the space of just a few minutes, this fellow in effect quizzed me on the Nicene Creed, although not in so many words. I remember standing there amazed, thinking, "I could be a pedophile, but the fact that I answered this guy's questions 'correctly' was enough for him to conclude that I'm a good Christian." Obviously, this experience made quite an impression on me. It was my first inkling of something I've found is very true: doctrinal tests require absolutely no discernment of the reality or truth of a person's spiritual state. I personally believe that this is why they are so popular.

A few observations about the Nicene Creed and those who hold to it as a spiritual test:

1. Most are relatively unfamiliar with the content of the Nicene Creed. (You seem to be an exception to this. Text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#1988_ecumenical_version_.28ELLC.29)
2. Most could not name a single person who was involved in the Council of Nicea (most are unknown. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Attendees).
3. Of those who can name one or two of the men involved at that council, most know nothing about those men's lives.

In fact, we have no way of knowing whether any or most or all of the men (there were no women involved) in the Council of Nicea were pedophiles or swindlers or any other manner of sinners. We just take it on faith that these were good, spiritual men. The fact is that we don't know them from Adam.

(tbc...)

Millard J Melnyk said...

(cont'd)

What we do know is that the council was convened by Constantine I to settle doctrinal matters. This was , who honored Greek and Roman gods and instructed that all his subjects, Christian and non-Christian alike should observe "the venerable day of the sun." Yet we base our judgment whether someone is or isn't going to hell on conclusions about doctrine formed by anonymous men in closed proceedings convened by an earthly ruler who would be judged as damned by the standards of the very council he convened? How does any of that make sense? What other important matters in life are we willing to trust to faith in the decisions of unknown people made in secret proceedings called by rulers we have no reason to trust? Hmmm... Sounds a bit like what some people have been saying about SF on this discussion thread... :)

The ironic thing about "discernment" by means of doctrine is that it is unscriptural. When Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits, it was clear that He meant the fruits of their lives and their ministries. When you think about it, what groups mentioned in the Gospels were the most rabidly zealous about doctrine? Who were the ones that raised doctrinal issues as traps? Of course, it was the Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees. We all know what Jesus thought about them. Jesus' anger with them was expressed in different ways. One of them was that they were blind guides who "say things and do not do them" and "who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" For the sake of a gnat's worth of doctrine, they would perpetrate or condone a camel's worth of evil and injustice. This is a big reason why I refuse to engage in doctrinal debates, (except just for fun of course!) and suspect people and organizations that put their primary emphasis on doctrine and doctrinal matters. To me, it's just straining at gnats while no one pays attention to the camels. At worst, it's promoted by people who want us straining at gnats precisely in order to distract us from paying attention to the camels that they hope to profit by. In contrast, Jesus' teachings came from the "power of an indestructible life," not by expertise in the doctrines of the time.

Doctrine is important, but we need to be clear about its purpose. Doctrines are formed AFTER THE FACT of encounters with God and experiences of the truth, if indeed the doctrine has any basis at all in experience and fact. Doctrines help us communicate. The realities that doctrines are supposedly concerned about are the God who we can encounter and the truth that we can experience. These realities do not change as the result of doctrines which we AT BEST articulate in order to DESCRIBE such encounters and the experiences to each other. The important things are the encounters and experiences, the God and the truth that they were encounters and experiences of, and what we do about all that. When our words and our behavior are judged, do we really think that God will place more importance on doctrinal issues or on the way that we lived and the things that we did?

Doctrine is important to those who think that doctrinal content matters. In other words, it matters to them whether you think that Jesus was God when he was on earth or not. Of course, doctrine has always been used to manipulate. People who manipulate with doctrine don't think that doctrinal content matters. They are interested in the outcomes of getting people to believe their doctrinal content, but they don't have a vested interest in what that content is. If a different doctrine will produce the desired outcome more effectively, they are happy to adopt the new "revelation" even if it flat out contradicts the old doctrine. None of this has anything to do with how we live our lives.

Millard J Melnyk said...

John, a PS.

As far as doctrine goes, I've read all of J.O. Smith's letters, most of his and Aslaksen's Skjulte Skatter articles, and many of Bratlie's SS articles. I did so in Norwegian, since most of them were not yet translated. There are differences in the tone and content of the writings of these three, and a clear progression from Smith's very personal early writings to Bratlie's eventually very doctrinal writings. Also, I noticed a very marked shift in Bratlie's SS articles in the 1940s, right around the time that he married Smith's daughter. After this time, Bratlie's writings became much more legalistic and dogmatic.

Millard J Melnyk said...

Russian,

You write as if you know me personally, which puts me at a disadvantage. Would you be willing to let me know who you are?

You asked if I would agree with "Since I've been 'out of the loop for so long' I don't know the current 'doctrines' or 'teachings' regarding what SF believes. I am going on what I experienced before 1993 and much may have changed."

Of course I would, and I've said that pretty clearly already. Hypothetically, anything is possible. For example, SF might have changed their minds that Jesus had sin in His flesh just like we have sin in our fleshes. SF might have decided that the practice of females not wearing pants, being male clothing, is not nearly as important as it was when I was in the group. Those things are hypothetical until we have some real information that allows us to decide whether they are in fact true or not true. You sound like you are informed about SF, their doctrines, and their practices. I encourage you to provide us with actual information in addition to raising hypothetical questions. In my experience in life, when a person has real information and instead of sharing that information he raises hypothetical questions, it's because the information will detract from the agenda he tries to promote with the hypothetical questions. In other words, why ask me if I agree with your hypothetical question that "much may have changed" instead of tell us specifically about what has changed, if anything/

So I have a question back at ya! And it's not hypothetical. :)

Are you implying that SF doctrine has changed significantly? If not, I'm curious about why you asked the question. If SF doctrine has changed significantly, I would be very interested in hearing what these changes are. Please let us all know what new ideas or practices have developed.

I'm glad to hear you admit that SF is in a development, not because intelligent people might wonder about that, but because it was denied by so many people in SF when I was in the group. I can't tell you how many times I heard Norwegians who were in good standing and highly regarded say that nothing that "the Brothers" had written in Skjulte Skatter or in their books had ever needed to be corrected. The point was that they had heard from God and their writings were inpired. For those not familiar with the term, "the Brothers" was a special term. It indicated "elder brothers" or "leading brothers" who were regarded as "having the Word of God." The term itself was general enough that it could be applied to every male in SF if necessary, but when it was used in contexts like the one I mentioned, everyone knew who it referred to.

You mentioned that just because things happened in the past doesn't mean that they continue. I agree completely, and I did not assume that particular things did or did continue. I freely acknowledge that I am uninformed. I have even written clearly that I have observed some significant changes. I am forced to guess about what might or might not be happening, and I am clear about the fact that I'm guessing. You, however, present yourself as being informed. I hope you will be willing to inform the rest of us.

(tbc...)

Millard J Melnyk said...

(cont'd to Russian)

To put a very blunt question to you, either the "development" that SF is in involves correcting or abandoning previous errors or it does not. Could you please tell us which? Is SF "developing" by adopting doctrines or practices which are significantly different than past doctrines or practices? Is SF adopting doctrines or practices which contradict or are incompatible with past doctrines or practices? If so, it would be very interesting and helpful to know what these significant changes are. Please explain.

I am being a bit blunt because I am so well acquainted with the inferential nature of SF tactics. You actually are delightfully straightforward and articulate, something I did not encounter with anyone when I was in the group, and especially not leaders like Kaare Smith and Bernt Stadven. (Is Stadven even in the picture these days?)

I don't mean to be offensive, but for example, saying that SF is "a church that is in a development" is ambiguous and allows you to flip back and forth if it's advantageous. If changes have happened in SF which are real departures from the past, you can avoid implying that past doctrines or practices were in fact wrong by characterizing these changes as simply further steps in a "development." On the other hand, if there have been no significant changes in doctrine or practice, you can imply that things have "developed" in such a way that my information from the 70s, 80s, and 90s is now obsolete, when in fact no such changes have occurred.

I'm just asking, "Which is it?" I'm also asking you to be specific about the changes or "developments" that you allude to. Thanks!

Millard J Melnyk said...

Harold

I missed something you posted. Not sure if it might just have been rhetorical, but here goes anyway...

You wrote:
======
Millard said “If this trend keeps up, they are going to have a more difficult time explaining how they are the only "true" Christian church.”

What could they do to make things more clear? I think that they have a hard time explaining that as it is. We don’t need to wait for anything else, do we?
=====

I know that it's clear to some that SF is wrong in their claim to be the true church simply because they make it. Others think it's a valid possibility. I guess a seeking person who looks around at mainstream Christianity could easily ask, "Is that all there is?" I know I did. I still do, with the difference that I don't expect to find an ORGANIZATION that fits the bill. I'm interested in individuals.

My comment about SF was that they as an organization are quickly becoming indistinguishable from any other Christian sect. When I was in the group, they had practices that distinguished them from the mainstream, (women's appearance, huge families, no TVs, limited contact with society in general, etc.,) so it was a little easier to say that they were "set apart" on a superficial level. And if we hear back from Russian, maybe we'll learn which of those practices are still current and which were discontinued. I didn't mean to imply that any of their their elitist claims are legitimate.

Sophie said...

Millard: Thanks for explaining about the defamatory campaign. I’m sorry to hear about your encounter and hurtful dealings with this group. Apparently you’re one of MANY that have been ruthlessly damaged by SF. From the many testimonies coming from around the globe, it has become very apparent that this Owasso incident is not an isolated event, but rather typical of SF and representative of their skewed belief system. So whether SF is called a cult, a sect, a coercive group, or something else doesn’t really matter. What DOES matter is that it has been proven that this group not only encourages, but also teaches and works diligently to separate loved ones from family members by using fear tactics, hate, deceit, defamation, lies, and twisted, out of context scripture.

They may think of themselves as the only true Christians. But, in John 10:14 Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me-just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father- and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have OTHER sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

You mentioned their interpretation of 1 John 5:19, “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Of course, they take "the whole world" to be everything that is not SF.”

If “the whole world” means ‘everything that is not SF’ where do they fit in John 3:16? Does “the world” still mean ‘everything that is not SF’?

Jn 3:16, “For God so loved “the world” that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

With their interpretation it would read, “For God so loved “everything that is not SF” that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Doesn’t that contradict their belief that they are the one true Christians?

You also mentioned, “I personally knew many in the group who took anti-depressants. Depress 'em, then depress 'em again for trying to cope with the depression... The tragedy is that none of this is constructive and all of it is unnecessary.”

You are very correct in saying that none of this is constructive and all is unnecessary. It is not surprising that so many would be depressed by some of the lyrics in their music and teachings (hatred, fear of outside world, division, and separation of family and friends) that this group adhers to.

Friedrich: I too like your list. Combine that with Harold’s back on Jan. 18 and it gives a thorough review.

Sophie said...

Giving it to God: I agree that it is difficult to not be angry when someone deliberately hurts someone else, especially when he/she claims to be ‘Christian’. Anger is one of many God-given emotions. There are many accounts in the Bible that demonstrates that even God got angry. It’s what we do with the anger that is important.

Ephesians 4:25-27 says, “Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. Be angry, and yet do not sin, do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity.”

Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy many things - our joy and Christian witness among them. When we live in a state of anger, it gives satan an opportunity to destroy the joy that comes from the Lord. By acting on raw emotion rather than obedience to God and using self-control, satan can tempt us to take matters into our own hands and ‘get revenge’ on those who’ve wronged us. I believe in time, God will ease your pain and He will get revenge on those who’ve wronged you.

Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.”

Hebrews 10:30, “For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

You’re correct in saying that mainstream Christianity is way different than SF. I agree with Millard when he said, “Lots of good comes from allowing information to flow naturally and freely.”

As a whole, healthy-minded, mainstream Christians: care if they correctly interpret and use the Word of God, don’t live in a state of paranoia that everyone outside of their church is evil and of satan, don’t feel the need to restrict information from people, don’t teach or believe the only valid, trustworthy source of information is from within their church, don’t move people into their home in order to restrict information, social activities, personal contacts and use tactics such as defamatory campaigns, lies, belittling, and criticism to deliberately turn members of the same family against one another, don’t implement ‘church’ leader supervised visits with one’s own children/parents, don’t arrange marriages, don’t lie to others or themselves, don’t use guilt as a source of control, and don’t threaten and/or intimidate because they are questioned or disagreed with.

RssnSpy6 said...

to Millard,

I would not say that I know you personally. I have strong memories of what the SF fellowships on the west coast were like in the 90's and you are part of them. There is no advantage or disadvantage to the anonymity of this blog as long as what is written is correctly referenced or sourced. I haven't shared my identity on this blog because I am not in a position of 'responsibility' when it comes to SF and am just representing my views/experiences. If I were an SF 'spokesman' I would gladly give out my name. If you'd like to contact me by email, rssnspy6@gmail.com.

If you had the time you could peruse the previous posts and glean quite a lot of information regarding changes in SF. I'll tell you now that it would be quite a daunting task due to the repetive nature of the arguments from each new entrant into this arena. I could share what I thought was 'actual information' regarding the history of SF's cultural and spiritual development over the last 20 years but that would take far too long. Even a summary would be long and some of it would be repeating previous posts. I don't have the time.

If you read the previous content you'll find, in my opinion, a lack of open minded-ness. Either SF is bad because of this/that and will always be bad or SF preaches the 'good news' and is Biblically driven. Not a single soul has changed their mind regarding this blog. Most of the constant contributors have but one experience with SF (the young lady in Owasso) and have decided that this 'fruit' must be indicative of the entire SF. John, on the other hand, has many examples and things to say that have never been properly sourced (whether they are hear-say, 2nd hand accounts, first person experiences, etc).

In short, I do not believe that the SF doctrine has deviated from JO Smith. The world around changes, issues change, clothes change, income changes, possibilities open up and yet the message that humans can follow in Jesus footsteps daily remains. I asked you the question because every (seems like every) former SF member I've talked to bemoans the fact that outward issues (that were a point of contention when they left) have changed--and how can SF still be christian if it isn't like this or that. It is as if SF is frozen into their minds as a static organization. SF is neither Amish nor Quaker. For many former members the change they see in SF is ungodly because they never had an inner life. It was just a form for them to fit into. Note that I am not putting this on you, as a former SF, because we haven't even talked.
continued...

RssnSpy6 said...

to Millard cont.

You said, "either the "development" that SF is in involves correcting or abandoning previous errors or it does not. Could you please tell us which?" --This is a very good question. In my experience and opinion the SF has done the best it could with the knowledge it had, which, in hindsight, I admit may have fallen short quite often. BUT, when wisdom came there was an acknowledgement that it hadn't been done out of love, or in wisdom, etc. Overall SF has gone from being quite legalistic to a much greater freedom. Is it all done perfectly in SF? No. But it is extremely good to be among 'the friends'.

B. Stadven is in good health and very good to hear.

This may not be specific enough for you, but I'd rather not write pages.

to Sophie,

I don't agree with your entire last paragraph, but thought that one item needed to be addressed. "Just be yourself" posted on Feb 22 a story about how her partner left SF in his 30's and "is a good man, works very hard and has a huge heart..." The truth is that the partner, as a father of 5 to 7 children (the oldest under 13 and the youngest an infant) left his wife for another woman. "Just be yourself" is convinced her partner is a good man despite their continued adultery. This seems like an example of Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" You don't know the circumstances around this situation or the reason for the 'supervised visits'. Don't grasp at tantalizing information to help bolster your list of negative SF traits.

Millard said...

Russian,

Thanks for your post and the info including your email address. You have mail. :)

I wasn't really looking for reams of detail about changes in SF, just some specific confirmation of where things are at instead of allusions to non-specific changes. I think you responded well.

It's interesting to hear your comment about former members "bemoaning" changes in outward issues. Great term, by the way, and I confirm it. I haven't had much to do with most of the others on the West Coast who left the group. Much of that has to do with that bemoaning as well as the fact that although they left SF, they don't seem to have abandoned much of the mindset that prevails in SF. I'm trying to learn and move on.

The external issues that SF formerly made a big deal about have never mattered to me so much. I doubt that the external issues themselves mean much to those who bemoan them, either. At one point those issues were regarded in SF to be spiritually significant and now they seem to be dramatically less significant. I think the rub is that such a major shift in attitude has happened without sufficient acknowledgment from SF leadership about the reasons for the shift.

Obviously, I haven't poured over the 1300-plus (!!) posts on this thread. I started to, but soon changed my mind. I've looked at those since the New Year. You indicate that much of the thread revolves around the Owasso incident. Wow. I decided long ago that it isn't necessary to get embroiled in specific details in order to understand what is going on with a situation. That might sound like a contradiction to my earlier request for specifics from you, but it isn't.

Details are the stuff that reality is made of. Understanding life is a matter of making sense of details. Once we've made some sense of details, we have beliefs about them. Details then serve to reinforce, enhance, and correct our beliefs.

What I am interested in is how we manage that process. For example, we can control the flow of information around us so that the info that we deem "valid" serves only to reinforce and enhance our existing beliefs, while we decide that any info that would challenge or contradict those beliefs is "invalid" simply because it seems to threaten our beliefs. Of course, we all tend to do this to one degree or another. Otherwise, every little detail that didn't fit our beliefs would throw us into a tizzy. But if we fall into a pattern, a habit of welcoming and encouraging information that reinforces our beliefs and at the same time ward off and discredit information that is critical of our beliefs merely because it is critical, we have taken a step towards self-delusion.

Millard said...

(cont'd to Russian...)

This is one of the main reasons that we put so much stock in science and the scientific method, as well as one of the main reasons for the success of science and technology. The scientific method deliberately includes a process of challenging beliefs. That's pretty much the whole point of the method. We start with a hypothesis, which is a kind of provisional belief. Judging from examples like the Theory of Natural Selection, even scientists can make much more out of a theory than they should, but hey! Even scientists are human. Anyway, THEORETICALLY (hehe) good scientists try to shoot their theory full of holes. This is what testing is all about. We make a big deal of testing in the software development industry, too. The software testers' motto is, "Break it if you can!" Then we analyze the test results. The WHOLE PROCESS IS WORTHLESS UNLESS we use the test results to refine, correct, or even discard our hypothesis. SF does not do this very well when it comes to their beliefs.

There is an additional step that many people take. Maybe we all take this step to one degree or another on some matters at different times, but then we reap the consequences. We can take the step of setting up an environment that encourages reinforecment of our beliefs and discouragement of criticism. In other words, rather than actively filter out the criticisms as they arise, we set up barriers to criticism that prevent it from being articulated. If no one hears it or if hearing it is taboo, criticism isn't just easier to manage, it practically doesn't happen. Of all the characteristics that people tend to associate with what they call "cults," this to me is the hallmark of a destructive group. This is full-throttle, self-reinforcing delusion.

Defensive groups and people can wall themselves up and make enemies out of anyone that criticizes them. That is narcissism. When a group or a person deliberately sets up a situation in order to reinforce and perpetuate a narcissistic agenda, that is exploitation. People throughout history who did this crossed a line into what I call predatory behavior. It's all about what they can get out of the victims that they suck into their programs, and it's without regard to how much harm the victims experience in the process. We have historical cases where it seemed like harming the victims was the primary purpose of the program, the more harm the better as far as the predators were concerned. History also shows that those who are closest to these predatory situations are the poorest judges of the nature of the situations and the harm that they are causing. There is no excuse for predatory behavior and we should not tolerate it.

BTW, it just occurred to me that maybe one of the problems with SF or any other high-intensity religious group is a matter of imbalance. Just consider how much time in SF church life and the individual lives of SF members is spent actively reinforcing beliefs compared to how little time is spent actively criticizing those beliefs or allowing them to be criticized. It's as if SF thinks that this would be a terribly dangerous thing to allow, even though Paul says that there is nothing that we can do against the truth, only for the truth.

(tbc...)

Millard said...

(cont'd to Russian...)

My opinion of Smith's Friends as an organization and many of the SF leaders and members I know personally is that it and they are quite narcissistic in their handling of criticism. The group also seems more exploitative than it used to be. There was a time when I often heard SF leaders boast about how we did not pass a collection plate in our meetings "like they do in the religious world." Now all kinds of activities go on with SF members in Seattle to raise funds that apparently end up in Brunstad. The funds certainly don't end up finishing the meeting hall that they started to build here in the 90s. It remains in the same unfinished state that it was in almost a decade ago, as per people I've talked to who have been there. (I am still, after 15 years, not welcome on the property, otherwise I'd be giving first-hand info on this.)

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is out on whether or not SF is a predatory group. There have been times that I would have loved to believe that they were. What's more, the group is changing. Perhaps the change is for the better. I truly hope so.

We all have things that at times we love to hate. At those times we can latch onto the extreme examples of behavior that we think are destructive and which reinforce our belief that a group is harmful. However, like I said, I've tried to learn and move on. I can't in honesty characterize Smith's Friends as a predatory group, or even as a generally destructive group. To do so would be premature and uninformed, and therefore unfair.

I can definitely say that SF has not handled criticism very well. It's interesting that, to my knowledge, practically all of the serious complaints leveled at them involve their extremely poor handling of criticism and opposition. Frankly, they are a bit paranoid. Maybe that is also changing for the better. I hope so, sincerely. The group was without doubt destructive to my marriage and to our family of six boys. I am well aware of the effects of group involvement on those whom I knew while in the group and some whom I still have contact with. Those effects are mixed, but they are not dramatically different than many other highly intense religious organizations and better than some. SF certainly has not conducted anything as atrocious as a Catholic Inquisition. The events around the "revival" of the early 90s and the exodus at that time were characterized by SF leaders as a kind of "cleansing." That's cool. SF felt better to have us gone and we who left felt better being gone. Nobody got burned at the stake.

I don't have sufficient information to go beyond what is reasonable and judge the group as a whole, especially not regarding the recent past. In fact, I can't get sufficient information. So far, SF refuses to allow me access to meaningful information.

Do predatory elements exist in the SF group? No doubt. Do they exist in the Catholic Church or the Baptist Church or the Presbyterians or the Mormons or in practically any organization, religious or otherwise, where human beings exhibit political behavior? No doubt. Does the fact that predatory or narcissistic behavior exists in a group that we have high regard for make the behavior somehow less destructive or more acceptable? Not a bit. If we find such behavior in a group that we dislike, are we justified to characterize the entire group by that behavior and ignore other possibly beneficial behavior? Not a bit.

Frankly, I am seeking reconciliation with SF. I have been doing so for some time, starting with the Smith's Friends members who are most important to me: my ex-wife and my sister. No takers yet, but I have truly high hopes.

Thanks for your post.

john said...

Russian said: "I do not believe that the SF doctrine has deviated from JO Smith."
It is good that you acknowledge this. And that is precisely why Russian is not to be trusted. This faith in JO Smith and his cronies like Sigurd Bratlie, Aslaksen etc and their infallible writings is the problem. That is the ERROR. That Christ is replaced by these humans and their interpretation of Christ is the only "doctrine" and therefore only those who believe this ERROR are the ONLY AND TRUE CHURCH.
Most people on this blog have not read closely what JO Smith etc have actually written. Many do not know how to analyse texts and compare what is going on with what other heretics have done in the past or how they have organised sects and cults.
That is why SF is able to get away with heresy. Also, only rare people like Russian enter into such discussions. NO SF LEADER will ever enter into such discussions. They know they are not equipped to meet the questions and critique and then again they know that it is easier to "hide" than enter into dialogue.
Millard who seeks reconciliation with this heretical sect cites the Wikipedia. It's pathetic. There are any number of records, if you care to dig it out, about the Nicene council and why the Nicene Creed was designed to root out the heresy that Jesus was a "descendant of Adam" and therefore clubbed along with all other humans as "having sinned in Adam" and "carrying sin in the flesh" and having to "cleanse himself of his sin" and thus "become God" again. This is the core SF belief. Do you want to reconcile with this belief system?
I can cite every passage in all the "infallible" central texts of the SF "fathers" and "prophets" that degrade Jesus as just a "son of Adam" and not the "son of God" on earth while he was "in the flesh". What the SF preaches is:
1. a form of Eastern spirituality (unconsciously and not being aware of Eastern spirits - that a man became God and now we can all "follow" him. Old hat for Indians!!
2. a form of New Age evolution of human beings "from Adam to Christ",
3. Gnosticism in the teaching that the body is sin and evil and must be purged of its impurities (Christ had to die on the Cross not as a substitute for mankind but because his body itself was sin and had to be sacrificed to please God)
4. Works - Christ "saved himself" and now we must save ourselves by doing what he did - we must strive and strive and be whipped onto more striving by the preaching of the "brothers" but He cannot save us by grace
5. Spiritual techniques - just like different Godmen in India and other places offer "salvific" techniques like Vipassana (S N Goenka), or Sudarshan Kriya (Sri Sri Ravi Shankar), or Scientology and its Training Routines on the Gradient, etc, the SF offers its technique of "going through the flesh", "the new and living way", "crucifying yourself", "dying", etc.
Interestingly, far from "crucifying themselves", the task of the "leaders" is to keep discovering those who must be "crucified" within the group to keep it compact and absolutely aligned to JO Smith, the new Christ, the new Paul.
(more)

john said...

CONTD:
This trajectory is precisely what enables SF to also organise itself into a heirarchy of "those who have attained" (Manichaenism. So Kare Smith is the one who has attained the "most" holiness and has "the word of god" and he is followed by Bernt Stadven, then people like Sverre Riksfjord, Harald Kronstadt, Rolf Telle, Arild Tombre. There is a clear-cut heirarchy of those who have achieved "prophethood" or "godhood". These people control the sheep spiritually, psychologically and financially.
It is this approach that enables SF and its adherents to easily accuse others of being "harlots" or "sinners" or "not having the life" or "not meeting the sect's standards" in behavior, doctrine, conformity, loyalty, etc. Anyone who dissents is instantly dumped into a "dust bin".
And every human being who does not belong to this sect is derogatorily called an "outsider".
DUPLICITY
Kare Smith is cleverer than JO Smith or his cronies like Bratlie who tried to literally follow the Bible. He understood that if SF does not change its clothes and watch TV and does not drink some alcohol or listen to jazz and pop, they would become increasingly isolated. So he has cleverly manipulated a "front" that can hide the true SF doctrine and mission (that of bringing people into psychological and financial slavery). He has succeeded too. Within the SF, the "core" always looks down on those who play the jazz, wear the cool clothes, watch movies, drink etc. And some of the "core" do all this too (you can have your cake and eat it too now) so the periphery or the "outer court" can be established. This "outer court" is what they try to display to the "world" to show that "we are just like you people". But the inner core consists of something else - a heretical doctrine and a business enterprise well welded one into another.
SF leaders work with duplicity. For instance, if there is someone in a fellowship who is "suspect", an SF leader would come smilingly to him and eat with him etc and try to "bless" him. The same leader would go into the group and behind the "suspect's" back encourage the others to isolate and despise the "suspect". This is a regular and very powerful manner in which the strong SF "goats" push out the weak or helpless "sheep" so that the sect can be homogenous and "protected" from the "harlot" spirit.
(end)

john said...

Millard: Nobody got burned at the stake but when Bekkevold was struck down, the rejoicing in the camp was ENTHUSIASTIC. That "shout of triumph" even reached India.
SF believes in the full destruction of their enemies (something like black magicians do when they can hex their opponents) and they rejoice when the destruction comes because every such example is used to build the "mythos" that "we are the true church, God destroys our enemies" etc.
There are also other examples like Bekkevold that can be cited - stories of families torn asunder, people being "beaten with the rod", smear campaigns, legal campaigns, physical threats (as experienced in Owasso). I can point out "texts" from the writings of the "fathers" along these lines too.
But let us leave it for now. It's a dirty business.
Harald - by the way you can be sure that Brunstad is backing the leader in Owasso ENTIRELY. So long as he bows down to Kare Smith, he is safe. The other way they do things is to pull some "loyalists" out of the limelight and to "hide" them till the storm is past. SF operates in many guises. Leaders who you might see to be leaders "up front" may not necessarily be the ones pulling the strings. The principle is hide and run things from the shadows.

Millard said...

John,

Haha! Just a few comments.

You wrote, "Millard who seeks reconciliation with this heretical sect cites the Wikipedia. It's pathetic." Could you please let me know whether you think I am pathetic, seeking reconciliation is pathetic, the heretical sect is pathetic, seeking reconcilitation with a heretical sect is pathetic, Wikipedia is pathetic, or citing Wikipedia is pathetic? Which of the above? All of the above? And please explain what you think is pathetic about it/them/me. Thanks.

Although, "Do you want to reconcile with this belief system?" seemed rhetorical, at least you asked. The answer is, "No." I reconcile with people, not belief systems. As I've already made clear, belief systems and doctrines are secondary. Belief systems do not dictate leadership decisions. Leaders make decisions and create and alter the belief systems that they promote. You gave several examples of this in your post. Jesus wasn't interested first and foremost in belief systems but rather in life and behavior. I think doctrines are interesting as they reflect or conflict with what is really going on. Doctrine vs. doctrine disputes don't interest me much. They certainly don't prove much. Arguing doctrine is certainly no substitute for having power in life.

It's interesting that you seem to think that it's me that would be reconciled to the SF belief system, as if it is the reference point and carries considerable gravity or substance. You seem to treat the errors of the SF belief system as something formidable. As far as their belief system goes, I see nothing to reconcile to. The essential characteristic of an error is that whatever is erroneous does not exist. We think that something is a certain way, but it isn't. We think that something is there or is true, but it isn't. Not being what it appears to be is why it's an error. SF's errors seem real enough and formidable enough to you that you spend considerable time and effort refuting them. I was left with a sense that you are fighting, battling. Maybe you feel that you are fighting for the truth, and that is admirable. If the way that you are doing it is effective, I'm all for it. I've just never seen doctrinal arguments be powerful or cause significant change. Again, I believe that this is because doctrine follows, not leads, the real events and decisions of life and the heart. Doctrine doesn't determine them or even influence them much. When doctrine is merely a tool in the hands of unscrupulous manipulators, arguing doctrine amounts to joining their game to play into their hands.

Even so, a little feedback. To my knowledge, your understanding of SF doctrine is a bit lacking. You get a lot of it, but are off on some of it, too. One example only, since I've no desire to get into the details of SF doctrine with you. Please! I have more interesting things to do. Your comments on gnostic teaching that "the body is sin" and this is why Jesus had to be sacrificed sounded very foreign, a variation of SF's teaching about the "body of sin." Much of what you wrote seemed pretty accurate or right on, just not all.

I found the last part of your post very interesting, especially the comments after "DUPLICITY". Russian was correct that we need to be clear about our sources. What are your sources for your information, especially your comments about the "inner court," the "core," and going behind someone's back to encourage members to isolate him or her? I'm also interested in what your sources are for info on the "enthusiastic" reaction to Bekkevold being "struck down" as you put it. I assume that refers to his stroke? I know that there were people who expected me to be struck down for speaking up "against the brothers." I'm still here. :) Maybe I didn't say enough and there are lightning bolts just sitting in the corner with my name on them, just in case the day comes...

john said...

Millard:
Apologies. Words get tangled up in blue. I meant Wikipedia is a pathetic source. Just as Wikipedia is a pathetic source for anything on the SF. :-)
Reconciliation with people is of utmost priority. Jesus recommends it. I have yet to see any religious organisation like the SF reconcile with someone whom it has cast out.
I also respect this what you said and am exactly with you on it: "When doctrine is merely a tool in the hands of unscrupulous manipulators, arguing doctrine amounts to joining their game to play into their hands."
However, this is a free space in which information flow is not controlled by SF so I feel I can speak here.
What really matters is what is going on at the ground level in this battle (and yes, there is a battle) - that is a battle in prayer and you can be sure that there is a band of prayer warriors who are praying steadily day by day BY NAME for an entire list of SF people to get grace from God to be set free in Christ Jesus from this "compound" steadily day by day - from SF leaders to SF lay people to those who have been damaged and destroyed by SF. This is the true battle and thanks for reminding me about it because it just might be the time for me to stop speaking and help more unceasingly and untiringly with the spiritual battle at hand.
Yeah and then: "Maybe I didn't say enough and there are lightning bolts just sitting in the corner with my name on them, just in case the day comes..."
More power to you! :-)

Millard said...

John,

Haha, looks like you are up and I should be in bed!

Thanks for your reply. I'm all for speaking freely 100%.

My battle is to find the power and wisdom for TRUE reconciliation. I was faced with one SF person who required that I had to get Friedrich Griess to remove something from his web site that I wrote almost 20 years ago before she would resume a relationship with me. Of course, I didn't comply. If I had, maybe there would have been some communication with her or maybe she would have just set up more hoops for me to jump through, who knows? What I do know is that complying with her demand would not have resulted in any kind of genuine relationship. Reconciliation isn't about playing the same game in a different way. It's about not playing games, period.

Glad to hear about the prayer going on. Prayer melts all hearts involved, the "prayors" as well as the "prayees." God knows what needs to be done to answer the spirit of our prayers. It isn't always what we intended when we did the praying, but melting our hearts and opening us towards each other--towards the REAL each other, not the facades and lies that we so often try to hide behind--might be the most important part of the whole thing.

That brings to mind something from a long time ago. I made specific, deliberate efforts over many years to make contact with SF leaders on the West Coast and many of the "visiting brothers" on a HEART level. Not that this was something different for me. All I've ever really been interested in is heart-level contact with those I care about. I made a special effort with leaders, though, because it seemed like they placed themselves behind their responsibilities, as if they were putting their "positions" out in front between them and the rest of us. I felt like I had to dig through that.

What I found out was a real surprise. It wasn't that I could not make contact with their hearts. I found out that I couldn't detect hearts to make contact with. I couldn't find anything that could be connected to. It was weird, as if except for their responsibilities and their doctrine, there really weren't persons there. It was like the question, "What do you want?" made no sense to them, they were so lost in "God's will" and their obligations and the appropriate way for a "leading brother" to behave and respond, etc. That was one of my first glimpses into the bankruptcy of doctrine, even if it's "correct." To my knowledge at the time, these guys had everything right. They were spiritual men, doctrinal giants, fountains of "wisdom." But who cares if there are no hearts there? Instead give me someone who doesn't know Adam from Abraham but looks you in the eyes, sees you, and wants to be seen and known. That person knows more about fellowship than most of the people I ever knew in SF, leaders included.

Harold said...

Millard: I stumbled across your ebook “Letter to Christians” and downloaded it. That was awesome. Your story is very interesting and very descriptive of typical cult involvement.

In one passage you summarize your quest for God and life as follows: “More than anything I realized that my quest, my entire enterprise—all the seeking, groaning, praying, and working—had revolved around me. It was all about my salvation, my sin, my faith, my holiness, God's approval of me, my place in heaven.”

It seems to me that in, what amounts to, a works based religious system it has to end up here because at the end of the day your salvation is tied up in your works. The underlying basis for this becomes selfishness. You are working for yourself, nobody else can do the work for you, and you can’t work for somebody else.

I believe that when you examine sin, all sin when boiled down to its root is selfishness. Murder is selfish (my needs are more important than your life), stealing is selfish (my wants are more important than your feelings), coveting is selfish (my desires are more important that yours), dishonoring and lying to your parents is selfish too.

I really fail to see how someone can truly read and study the Bible, the Word of God, and come away with the idea that Jesus’ teachings were all about focusing on myself while ignoring the needs of others. Jesus hammered this home again and again to love others as yourself and humble yourself before others and things like this. Is it just not possible to read the Word of God for yourself inside a group like this?

In a recent post you said: “Understanding life is a matter of making sense of details.”

I would have to say that understanding what is going on here in this SF group IS necessary to understand and make sense of the details. That is why this blog revolves around this specific incident and its details.

You said the jury is still out on whether or not SF is a predatory group. For a SF leader, who is also a teacher in the public high school, to use his classroom to introduce his students to his church and his religious beliefs, surreptitiously, without parental notification, does this constitute a predatory act?

Your comments about reconciliation bring to mind a recent documentary I watched on the People’s Temple. The whole thing is a series of interviews with survivors. Some of them, after so many years, and even after acknowledging the emotional and physical abuse they endured, still to this day look back at the utopian idea of Jonestown with fond memories of what it could have been. And I wonder if they still had the chance today, would they get on a plane and go back tomorrow if they could? I think some of them would.

Harold said...

Russian: I thought we wouldn’t hear from you again after your farewell post some time ago. It is good to have you back.

We here may have had only one experience with SF. That does not negate the validity of our experience. That is also why it is necessary to do research on this group, to listen to others like yourself and also those ex-SF people. ALL of those experiences are necessary to evaluate the group as a whole. No, I have not traveled extensively to other SF groups and lived with them to experience ALL of SF. That would be inconvenient and not truly necessary. I believe I am quite capable of evaluating all these comments on this media and other sources while examining the fruit of this local group in order to form a solid opinion.

I don’t believe we are “crying over 3 year old spilled milk.” I’m sure you talk like that to all who dare to question SF. That’s OK. You don’t hurt my feelings.

By the way, I continue to constantly evaluate my own church as well. I believe this is healthy and necessary for any body of believers. We do have our own warts, and I believe that every church body does, but my salvation is based upon my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and not my relationship to any church.

Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...

Harold,

Thank you for your kind words about my "Letter to Christians." I appreciate it.

I agree that spiritual selfishness (my term) is commonplace in "works based" religious systems. However, I don't think that it's restricted to them. People from "works" groups are not significantly more selfish than people from "grace" groups. When I think of "works" groups I always think of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's uncomfortable to be around them, they are under constantly under so much pressure. SF isn't nearly that bad. On the other hand, people from "grace" groups seem self-absorbed in their enjoyment of God's grace and quite superficial about living a Christ-like life and doing God's will. That superficiality is a big reason why people think that "works" groups are more serious about their faith.

For that matter, Christians aren't much less selfish than anyone else. Evangelical preaching clearly plays to our selfishness. It's all about convincing people that they are sinners and need to be saved and reconciled to God. For whose sake do preachers preach salvation and do converts accept it? I never met anyone who was in agony over his sin and rebellion against God because he was concerned about someone else's eternal welfare. Selfish is how we come to God.

We don't jump to maturity when we get saved any more than a child jumps to maturity when he or she is born. We begin needing milk, but we are supposed to grow up and start tolerating solid food. I think "solid food" has to do with facing reality and "eating" (digesting God's Word) because we need the strength to help and benefit those we love, not just because it tastes good or makes us feel good. Christians are way too concerned with feeling good and "having it good."

You asked, "Is it just not possible to read the Word of God for yourself inside a group like this?" Of course it is, but let me ask a more pertinent question: Is it possible for God to reveal the Word to us when we are surrounded with influences that contradict Him? Yes, but it's much more difficult and begs the question why we would want to. Why don't we first get away from those other influences? Those influences can come from an intense church environment, or they can come from too much TV watching or career obsessions or family codependency. Reading the Word of God for myself put me at odds with SF and eventually got me ejected from SF.

I said the jury is out on SF being predatory and was clear about why. Your response confirms my point. I don't defend SF or its leaders. I have seen plenty of predatory behavior by SF leaders. I just refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The teacher you mentioned might be representative of the norm in SF. Let's say that he is. That does not justify a blanket judgment over the group and everyone in it. Remember Abraham dickering with the angels about Sodom & Gomorrah? He focused on what little good might still have been there instead of the horrors that surrounded that little good. If you have ever had personal contact with SF people and are not bent on dwelling on their evils, you already know what good is there.

HAHA! I am so interested in the reactions that my "reconciliation" comment has triggered. So far both you and John jumped to similar conclusions, that somehow I was going to RECONCILE MYSELF TO THEM. I think that we find the answers to most of our mistakes in our assumptions. I encourage you to examine yours, because I don't fit into the scenario you described. SF was not "utopian." My life right now is much closer to that. Besides, I mentioned specifically who I am seeking reconcilition with: two people who are very, very dear to me. Them first. If others come afterwards, that's great.

(tbc...)

Millard said...

(cont'd to Harold...)

So I'd like to give you and others on this board some food for thought. Jesus was safe and happy in heaven. He left there to walk this stinking earth (it stank much more back then) with a bunch of idiots bent on destroying themselves and each other. He was killed by the very people he came to help. The fact that he knew that he would rise from the dead didn't make his agony in the garden any less intense. That is the example of involved care that Jesus left us. He jumped into the cesspool to drag us out of it. None of this is foreign to anyone who truly loves someone who is in dire need of help.

Addiction is a good example. Loving family and friends of addicts are interested in what can be done for them, not what is wrong with them. Convincing the addict of his addiction has only one purpose: to get the addict to step away from his addiction. As long as the addict and his addiction are "one" there is no hope of "salvation." As soon as the addict takes that step of separation from his demons, everyone who loves him focuses on his recovery, not his addiction. They also don't overlook his personal strengths and good points. Recognizing them actually serves to strengthen the addict's stand against his addiction and serves his escape from it.

There are reasons that former addicts are better than others are at reaching addicts, and it goes beyond just being "able to relate" or having "been there." Former addicts know, as current addicts do, that the substances they abuse ARE NOT ALL BAD and that the addicts' life IS NOT ALL BAD. Non-addicts seem unwilling or unable to recognize this. It's not all bad, but it's terminal.

I look at SF and its members as a community of addicts. Only those who have not been in there with them are able to accept the fiction that it is all bad.

Maybe that's one reason why the Word had to become flesh. Short of that, no one in heaven could say from experience that humanity was not all bad and that there was still something worth saving. It probably didn't look like it from the outside, but Jesus knew. Also, short of becoming flesh and walking among us, any judgment that the Word passed over humanity's evil would have been uninformed and inaccurate.

It's sad when people stand up as authorities on things that they incurred no cost to understand, things that they refuse to get involved in, and then from that position make a big deal about the evils that they see from their outsiders' vantage point. That isn't how we are going to reach a suffering world. Christians tend to do this more with people who promote other faiths than they do with plain old "sinners." Why? Do we feel threatened by those faiths? If those faiths are in error, what makes them more of a problem than the belief systems of people whose lives revolve around money or violence or sex?

I encourage people on this thread to think about these things. Judgmental attitudes are weak, not powerful, especially from the perspective of those being judged. If we want to judge "righteous judgment" over Smith's Friends, let's make friends with them first. Read Matt. 5:25 in this connection. Then at least we will avoid inserting foot when opening mouth. ;) Or does the prospect of making friends with them threaten, daunt, or otherwise repulse us? At least it's something I don't think that you'll find a SF member doing, so we'd be different! lol

Harold, I don't mean to imply that all of this applies to you, but I do think that some of it applies. I mean no offense to you or anyone on this discussion thread. I just think that WE ALL have a long way to go to find effective and constructive ways of dealing with the problems that a group like SF presents.

Sophie said...

Russian: You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. And, you are correct in saying, “You don't know the circumstances around this situation or the reason for the 'supervised visits'.”

Although, I do not endorse adultery nor ‘know the circumstances around this situation or the reason for the ‘supervised visits’, I am, however, entitled to my opinion which is that ‘healthy minded, ‘mainstream’ Christians’ don’t implement church leader supervised visits with one’s own children/parents. If this man has in any way harmed his own children, the legal system should be involved and either have his parental rights revoked or have court ordered supervised visitations. It is my opinion that is NOT the place of a church to guard a parent’s visitation with his/her own child. Those who are ‘supervising’ may not be engaged in adultery, but they are also sinners as all living, breathing, human beings are. It may just be a sin that is not so outwardly obvious. So, what makes them more qualified to ‘supervise’ than the children’s own mother and father?

It has been stated on here more than once that all of SF should not be judged by the acts of a few. That is true, not only for SF, but also for all people of any organization. None of us should be judged by what another individual does, says, thinks, or feels.

Concerning this line of thought, I’d like to make two points. First, SF’s belief is that anyone not belonging to their group is part of the harlot. This cannot be denied, as it is printed in their materials. So, they have already judged and labeled anyone who is not part of their group.

Second, due to the fact that there have now been numerous incidents that have happened and been witnessed from around the globe demonstrating similar behaviors, it is difficult not to form the opinion that this is what SF as a whole believes, teaches, practices, endorses, and lives.

When God looks at us, He sees an individual human being.

1 Samuel 16:7, ‘The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’

Millard, Feb.23: “…I don't expect to find an ORGANIZATION that fits the bill. I'm interested in individuals.”

Harold, Feb.26: “…but my salvation is based upon my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and not my relationship to any church.”

When all has been stripped away from us-skin, hair, make-up, clothing, cars, houses, friends, etc, what God sees is our heart. He judges us on an individual basis.

Harold said...

Millard: You make some good points and some that have already been brought out in this long discussion. For instance, your analogy of addiction. There is a book by Steve Arterburn called “Toxic Faith” where he goes into great detail about how his clinic treats victims from coercive groups as “religious addicts” in the same way he treats drug addicts.

I also don’t deny the fact that there are those Christians that go too far into what Jarsmom refers to as “greasy grace”. There are the works based groups that go too far to the other extreme. I believe that Paul’s writings in the book of Romans and Ephesians makes this very point.

I agree that all people, including those that call themselves Christians, are selfish by nature, but as we grow and mature in the Word and follow the example of Jesus Christ we begin to focus not on ourselves but others. That is the hypocrisy that I see in SF. They claim to live a life of “victory over sin”, but the fruit this group exhibits through hate and malice towards others doesn’t show it.

And just as you state that we shouldn’t judge all SF by the actions of this one group, you shouldn’t judge all Christians by the actions of the few that you know either.

On the other hand, when we come in contact with a group who claims to be Christian and exhibits a predatory nature and behavior that is decidedly anti-Christian isn’t it our duty to examine this group and understand what they are in order to protect others from being victimized as you were? Yes, there may be some good things in their teachings but should we just overlook the bad and say well “oh well” too bad for those people. If you discovered there is a sexual predator living next door wouldn’t you want your other neighbors with small children to be aware of what he is in order to protect the children? Or should you keep silent and just pray for them?

Harold said...

As Russian pointed out, we here in Owasso have only experienced this one SF fellowship. He, and you, want us to not judge all of SF by the actions of this one group. OK. So we have, here on this blog, the opportunity to examine the teachings of SF and the experience of those who claim to be SF, those that have experience with other groups of SF, and those that are ex-SF like yourself. As you said, “a free flow of information”. Isn’t that what we SHOULD do as believers, examine ALL points of view?

So Daniel Strubhar says: “We are definitely not a "strict control" type of group, but encourage each other, with the purpose to build one another up in faith to live in victory over all conscious sin. We experience good brotherhood and fellowship, because we seek to live our life on the cross”

And you say: “It wasn't that I could not make contact with their hearts. I found out that I couldn't detect hearts to make contact with. I couldn't find anything that could be connected to. It was weird, as if except for their responsibilities and their doctrine, there really weren't persons there. It was like the question, "What do you want?" made no sense to them, they were so lost in "God's will" and their obligations and the appropriate way for a "leading brother" to behave and respond, etc.”

These two statements seem to contradict each other. So which one of you are we to believe? Which one of you is the real church?

As Jesus said in Mat 7:16: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.”

Daniel Strubhar said “"you shall know them by their fruits." The fruit that I have seen is only happy lives, both in young and old, and happy homes, and that is what the Gospel should produce, as I understand it, anyway!”

The fruit that we have seen is hate, threats, and the destruction of families. You asked “Or does the prospect of making friends with them threaten, daunt, or otherwise repulse us?” Who here needs to make friends with whom?

When you are mugged on the street by someone, is it your fault because you failed to make friends with him first? Are you making the assumption that no one here tried to “make friends” with them?

When the whole SF group (including members from all around the country) at this girl’s wedding reception stand idly by watching, some cheering, while this SF leader’s sons assault the girl’s family in the parking lot, are we supposed to believe that this is not indicative of the whole SF?

You were faced with conditions in order to have a relationship with your SF friend when they demanded that you have Fredrick remove something from his web site. Their friendship is conditional. It is the same here, and the girl is kept “a sword’s distance” from her family and friends. Just as you not willing to compromise your beliefs in order to have a relationship with those you are seeking, neither are those here.

Millard said...

Sophie,

Good to hear your thoughts. 100% right on.

You wrote, "Second, due to the fact that there have now been numerous incidents that have happened and been witnessed from around the globe demonstrating similar behaviors, it is difficult not to form the opinion that this is what SF as a whole believes, teaches, practices, endorses, and lives."

Agreed, but this is where my understanding of Matt 5:39-48 comes in.

Jesus starts out with, "...do not resist an evil person..." I can't believe how long I thought that this passage was some kind of "doormat doctrine." Of course, that's poppycock. Paul elaborates in Rom. 12:19-21. "Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." We are to be anything but doormats.

So, I put Matt 5 together with Rom 12 and realized that I'd been looking at something very powerful without seeing it for a long time.

We know that the first reaction to resistance is opposing force or resistance. Jesus advised against this. Don't resist. Let them have their way. Maybe they made a mistake or were under duress or were impulsive or were deluded. If you turn your other cheek or offer your coat or the 2nd mile and they take it, both the 1st time and the 2nd time were probably intentional, making it a whole different ball game.

The beauty is that if we let an evil person slap us the 2nd time or take our coat or force us to go the 2nd mile, we've lost a little bit (just a little bit) and THEY have made clear that they are evil. We aren't calling them evil. We just handed them enough rope for them to hang themselves. They can't blame us if they go ahead and do it. And if they aren't evil, we get to find that out and avoid falsely accusing them and possibly turning a potential friend into an enemy. Either way, it gets things out into the light where they belong.

15 years ago, SF clearly seemed to be everything that I've heard others on this thread say about them and much, much worse. But I have to allow that I was in a poor position to judge what I was experiencing. The experience was somewhere between Vanilla Sky and The Matrix. I didn't physically find myself naked, plucked from filthy waters and dropped onto an iron grate in a gray-blue, techno-mechanical reality, but it certainly felt that way mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. My old reality was ripped to shreds and the new one was pretty scary. What reliable frame of reference was I supposed to use to judge what was going on and the intentions of the people doing it?

Scary blue-gray metal grating on metal eventually gave way to colors and music. Now I have a wonderful frame of reference.

So, this is me turning the other cheek to Smith's Friends. I welcome them, not for the purpose of "going back" to them, but for the purpose of meeting "in the light" just as John says in his letter, (one of SF's favorite sayings when I was in the group, btw.) A lot of time has passed. As Russian implies, maybe things have changed. If they meet me, cool. If they slap me on the other cheek, that makes things pretty clear. I can't turn any more cheeks to them, 'cuz I've only got two! ;)

This, like much of my life, is a very interesting experiment. I'll let you know what happens.

Millard said...

I got to thinking...

It's fun to try things and find out what happens. The worst that can happen is that we suffer, die, and go to hell. If we are still afraid of that happening, we aren't yet free from "fear of death" as mentioned in Heb. 2:15.

I think Luther had incredible insight when he wrote:

"God works by contraries so that a man feels himself to be lost in the very moment when he is on the point of being saved. When God is about to justify a man, He damns him. Whom he would make alive he must first kill. God's favor is so communicated in the form of wrath that it seems farthest when it is at hand. Man must first cry out that there is no health in him. He must be consumed with horror. This is the pain of purgatory. I do not know where it is located, but I do know that it can be experienced in this life. I know a man who has gone through such pains that had they lasted for one tenth of an hour he would have been reduced to ashes. In this disturbance salvation begins. When a man believes himself to be utterly lost, light breaks. Peace comes in the word of Christ through faith. He who does not have this is lost even though he be absolved a million times by the pope, and he who does have it may not wish to be released from purgatory, for true contrition seeks penalty."

From "Here I Stand" by Roland Bainton, page 82

I keep having to remind myself of Luther's ideas when I start getting scared of something. The worst that could happen is no worse than what I deserve. Anything short of that is grace!

Millard said...

Harold,

Good post! I think that a lot of what you asked me about was addressed by my response to Sophie.

You asked some rather pointed questions, though, so I'll try to respond to them directly.

Re: "Strict Control"

I found SF to be an extremely strict group, but their control is clever. They exert it by means of social conditioning, so there is always plausible deniability. If someone says, "They make all their women cover their heads in their meetings," they respond that, "Everyone is free to follow their consciences," and then point out the scriptural basis for women to "cover their heads." Everyone is perfectly free, that is, until a woman who is seeking good standing in the group keeps coming to meetings with her head uncovered.

Let's say that happens. A woman who considers herself "a sister" continues coming to the meetings without covering her head. Once it's clear that it's not going to change on its own, she will get all kinds of gentle, indirect, and unmistakable influence about head coverings. Everyone will smile and be gracious about it. And guess what happens to all that when she complies? The smiles and graciousness will continue, the "encouragement" about head coverings will stop.

What happens, as it rarely did, if a woman decides in good conscience that a head covering is not necessary for her? The smiles and the graciousness lose their warmth and eventually disappear, and the encouragement gets insistent, even takes on an "or else" tone. Everyone knows what's going on, but no one will talk about it. As a matter of fact, anyone that tries to talk about it will get shut down. I watched this happen too many times to count.

And then a curious thing happens. Either the woman will accept the fact that she is not "a sister" in a full-fledged sense of the term, or she will cover her head. Either way, smiles and graciousness will return. No problem if you don't want to cover your head: you just can't pray or testify in the meetings as if you were "a sister." Anyone who tries to have her cake and eat it too on this one suddenly finds herself on the way to being regarded as having one kind of evil spirit or another, especially a "spirit of rebellion" or a "Jezebel spirit."

Re: "Making Friends"

With all respect, I truly think you missed my point.

First, we aren't talking about making friends with muggers. I am talking to you and others on this thread who apparently have little to do personally with SF. They won't mug you.

Second, why would you assume that I would say the same things I've written here to someone from the family you mentioned who were accosted by SF preacher's kids ('cuz that's what they are, no different,) in the parking lot? Again, I'm writing to people who apparently have little to do personally with SF. I'm encouraging you to know your enemy, since you seem pretty clear that SF is the enemy. You don't know them very well. You might be wrong about them. As a matter of principle, I'll say outright that you ARE wrong about them to some degree, because your unfamiliarity leaves blank spots that you are bound to fill in incorrectly, just like I or anyone else would do.

(tbc...)

Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...

(cont'd to Harold. Each time I post I resolve to make it a single entry. You can all see how well that's working for me...)

I see signs on this thread of people judging SF without sufficient information and facts to justify it. I'm not saying NO info or facts, but INSUFFICIENT info and facts. Prejudicially convicting a guilty man gets thrown out of appellate court just the same as prejudicially convicting an innocent man would. The judicial process tries to make sure that by the time we make a judgment, we are justified in making it. It was set up precisely because we humans like to make up our minds long before we have the info and facts to justify doing so.

The court process prevents us from rushing to judgment over people that we are sure are guilty. What other kind would we rush to judgment over, anyway? I'm saying the same kind of thing here, that just because we have reason to believe that SF is guilty (grand jury stage) doesn't justify us passing judgment without due process and a proper trial, so to speak. "Making friends" is just a playful way of encouraging you to get real, first-hand info. You might not want to do that. That's fair. Just make your opinion/judgment of the group proportionate to and supported by the info and facts that you DO have.

I'm just encouraging everyone to be fair, even more, to follow Scriptural principles. I know that if you were to get to know people from SF, your picture would change. Don't assume that I mean that you would become more tolerant of them, because I don't necessarily mean that. You might become more certain that you were right all along. I have no idea how that would turn out, because I'm not there. You are. What I do know is that things wouldn't just stay the same.

Besides, after having tried to make friends and failing, you'd have better ammunition. Or you might find out that you were wrong, at least in part. Or all of the above. More importantly, you would lose something that you really don't want to keep: the lack of experience with SF that makes your judgment seem uninformed and prejudicial. The worst thing about rushing to judgment is that later on, when people are more removed from the situation and can see that proper care and fairness weren't exercised, the "poor condemned" party gets treated like a victim. If the party is truly guilty, that's even worse than simply letting them off the hook!

Clearly SF friendship is conditional. It's ironic. For all the "love" that they share and all the "love" that they show, every single SF member knows that if certain lines are crossed, he or she will "end up on the outside." I wrote about that in my letter. They even boast about it like a badge of courage, as if to say, "I'm not special. If I turn away from God and The Brothers, (you can even insert 'like so-and-so did' here—they do!) I deserve to be on the outside just like anyone else."

As humble as this might seem, it is an implicit condemnation of the group, because the leaders and the group as a whole are more than happy to PUT you "on the outside" if you cross certain lines. It's amazing that the very same thing could be viewed in diametrically opposite ways. We think that the conditionality of their love shows that it is not the love of God. They think that it shows their spirituality, holiness, humility, and love of the truth.

(tbc... my resolution is failing miserably...)

Millard said...

(cont'd to Harold...)

Re: "Just as you not willing to compromise your beliefs in order to have a relationship with those you are seeking, neither are those here."

Harold, Harold... Always with the beliefs! ;-) You know what I think about that. Beliefs are not life and they are not power in life. Maybe we need to agree to disagree on the importance and role of doctrine. I do have a comment, though.

I think it's interesting that you assume that to "make friends" with SF you would be forced to compromise your beliefs. Why would this be necessary? People make friends across faith lines all the time, no problem. All kinds of Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and atheists are friends with each other. It happens everywhere. This assumption, along with your allusions to muggers and other things you write, makes me think that you see SF as quite a threat. On that we might need to agree to disagree, too. I don't see SF as a threat. I see SF as an ingrown, somewhat puny, self-absorbed, and self-serving religious group. Not much there to be threatened by.

Norwegians used to have a pet name for Norway, "Lille Norge," or, "Little Norway," which was a self-deprecating way of admitting that they didn't amount to much as a nation, but were important in their own small way, anyway. That changed a lot once they found oil. I think of Smith's Friends in much the same way: a little group that doesn't amount to much but toots their own horn anyway. They certainly don't hold a candle to the Catholic Church or the Mormons or dozens, maybe hundreds of other religious organizations.

Norwegian leaders used to come to the States and make fun of Americans in the meetings, make fun of the English language, make fun of American food, etc. Once, at a meeting at one of the "conferences," they stood in front of the congregation, each with a little Norwegian flag in his hand, and smiled and waved their little flags because it was some Norwegian holiday that day. You can believe it or not. I could hardly believe it, and I was there. I wonder how well it would go over at Brunstad if a group of Americans took that same time, said the same kinds of patriotic drivel, and waved little American flags in front of the whole congregation? hehe

If I lived near Brunstad, where SF is exerting political and economic influence and impacting everyday life the area, I might see things a bit differently. Otherwise, SF is small potatoes and so far not very good at handling criticism. It's a weakness, not a strength. You could use it to your advantage. I think you should get to know them, give it a go! You might have fun with it.

Millard said...

Harold, missed this:

"On the other hand, when we come in contact with a group who claims to be Christian and exhibits a predatory nature and behavior that is decidedly anti-Christian isn’t it our duty to examine this group and understand what they are in order to protect others from being victimized as you were? Yes, there may be some good things in their teachings but should we just overlook the bad and say well “oh well” too bad for those people. If you discovered there is a sexual predator living next door wouldn’t you want your other neighbors with small children to be aware of what he is in order to protect the children? Or should you keep silent and just pray for them?"

Understand, yes.

Protect others, yes. But remember that "victims" in abusive relationships have responsibilities too, and that the reasons they get involved in the relationships originate in pathologies that have nothing to do with their abusers. Don't assume that vilifying the abuser will free the victims, either. It usually has the opposite effect.

Good things in their teachings: again with the doctrine! Actually, I had in mind good things in their hearts, lots of good in lots of hearts. That's a prerequisite for victim status, otherwise they aren't victims but co-perpetrators, sick partners in their own abuse.

Overlook the bad, no. Not necessary and not my point. My point was to not overfocus on the bad so that you overlook the good. Different point.

For the bad: OVERCOME evil with good.

Sexual predatory hypothetical: Haha, you must take me for a scrawny, bent over old man. I'd do what I could to keep kids safe, try not to abuse his human rights in the process, and watch him LIKE A HAWK. If I ever encountered him trying to take liberties with anyone, I'd stop him first whatever that might take and call the police second. Prayer would come a distant third.

jarsmom said...

Greetings
I know I havent bloged in quite a
while.

Millard, I am glad to meet you. I went to hear Sigard Johann when I first started to go to the meetings. He was in seattle, this
was circa 94 or 95. I also rem-
ember meeting Katie, she seemed
like a real nice lady. I am so
sorry that your family got so bla-
sted like that. But when in SF,
as you say there are certian lines
one does not cross. If one does
cross them then one is left with
sometimes very horrific consequen
ces. And of course it is always
the line crosser who is always to
blame, for not being faithful in
thier thot life etc, blah,blah
blah. I have heard all the con-
versations, different people, but
always the same content. Aint if
awful about bro so and so, to which
the leading bro responds, "Is it?"
Smart A** Then come the conver-
sations in hushed tones and the
arching of the eyebrows. Yes, I
know it well, how it all goes, I
used to be quite the faithful sister. Got it right straight from
the start. Headcover and all.
(I liked what you said about the
plausable denibility) Then for some reason I just got sick of it
all.

So I am familar with SF. Know
ledge I have obtained first hand.
I think I understand what you are
saying though.
Give em a fair trial, so when they
fry, no one can cry foul and they
get off the hook, I know that sounds a bit extreme, but we are
dealing with people who are happy
to widow a young woman (figurativly speaking)by metaphori-
cally killing her husband. unfreaking believable.
I dont mean to rant, but sometimes
I think things need to be put into
a very clear prespective, We need
to treat people correctly!!!!! Even
when they are stepping on the lines

Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...

jarsmom,

Nice to hear from you. Did we meet? You can reach me at skeptic23@gmail.com. It would just be nice to know who I am talking to when you know who I am.

I can tell that you get it. Believe it or not, in all these years character assassination never came to mind as a term to apply to what happened. Your comment about widowing a young woman made the connection for me. I'd thought of other ways of looking at it, but not that one. Thanks.

Katie is a beautiful, wonderful woman. For years I didn't want to admit that. I was furious. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say that I was enraged. I didn't even want to admit that I loved her. People told me that sometimes your love for a person dies. I hoped that mine had. A couple of years ago, my sister told me that she still had hopes for Katie and me. She told me that she never stopped praying for us. No joke, I asked her to please stop praying for that. I didn't want to face having to deal with that prospect. I hoped that there was someone "better" for me.

Here I am now, doing everything I can think of to open a door back up with Katie. I pay very close attention now when my sister tells me that she is praying for something! I'm chuckling, but I'm serious. God listens to her. And now I know without a doubt that love never dies, even if you want it to, even if you try to kill it. Now I also know that sometimes we want it to die, so it's a good thing that it won't.

About the "being fair" thing...

I love examining assumptions. I'm obsessive about examining my own and feel like I only scratch the surface. However, other people's assumptions are MUCH easier to notice than the log in my own eye. ;)

One assumption that seems to be behind the reactions to what I wrote about reconciliation and "being fair" etc., is that I'm trying to mollify or compromise or soften things. It's exactly the opposite, PRECISELY the opposite. This is all so interesting...

I think that I might shock even Harold by how harsh I can be towards predatory behavior. The old quandary that some Christians get into about whether they would lie to Nazis about the location of Jews or whether they would harm someone who threatened their loved ones hasn't been a quandary for me for a long time. If I were faced with lying to the Nazis and could do it, I'd shoot the Nazis. If anyone ever threatened bodily harm to one of my children, I would hit that person with everything I am and have and everything I could grab hold of and I wouldn't stop beating that person until I knew that they posed no more threat or someone pulled me off him. If they were to die as a result, then they die. If I went too far, I went too far. I'd review, adjust, and hopefully be in a better position to do a better job if another incident occurred, but I wouldn't apologize. I'd apologize to the person's loved ones for causing them grief, but that's different. And if another incident occurred, I'd do exactly the same thing again: the best I could at the time to keep my child safe, no reservations.

The ideas I've been promoting in my recent posts aren't about cutting predators slack or giving them a pass or condoning their predatory behavior. I understand how they could be taken that way, but back to Rom 12:

Rom 12:17-21 (NASB):

17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

(tbc... of course)

Giving it to god said...

I'm facebook friends with a few smith's friends cult members. That's as far as my "befriending" them is going to go, if you call on their phone message system they haven't updated their meetings on their answering machine since may of last year instead they say "from now on out go to our website's calendar to find out future dates" well I don't have the password for that! I used to give them money but don't anymore, I don't have so much anger towards them - though I know many think I'm so mad at them still. Really I have a mental disorder and back then I didn't know it and my judgement was way way clouded due to it ----- it wasn't a good experience that cult wasn't..........but there is hope for me : ) For my salvation, for everything. I'm thankful I'm blocked from being able to attend the smith's friends cult. Healing is happening for me. And things are better for me spiritually now cause I'm relying on christ much more. Doing good to the smith's friends is good though, if anything just so that they can't walk around thinking themselves to be such god's anymore.

Millard said...

Now that's what I'm talking about! Heaping burning coals on their heads is different from cutting them slack. Overcoming is NOT overlooking. I don't think that the burning coals are pangs of conscience, either, as if evil people could recognize or as if they even cared that their evil was repaid with good. To the extent that someone is evil, to that extent he's already abandoned conscience. I think that the coals are what it feels like for evil people each time a ray of sunlight pierces through their webs of lies and exposes them lurking there underneath. Think "caught with hand in cookie jar," except with much more dire consequences. Each exposure restricts their freedom of movement and area of control.

More importantly, each true exposure reduces the amount of support predators get from the people that they are lying to and abusing. I think that's why they get so vicious towards people that might expose them. Support from their victims is a predator's primary source of power.

Lots of people make a big deal about Satan and his devices, and I don't mean to minimize this, but Satan doesn't empower people who are not evil. Satan does terrorize good people, though, and deceives them into empowering evil people. Apart from this, evil people are pretty powerless.

Just picture a Hitler in rags in a square in Vienna screaming his hatred for people out to a bunch of contented Viennese people going about their own business. They probably would have had him locked up. He could be every bit as evil there as he was in Nazi uniform with the SS and hundreds of thousands of troopers behind him, but not nearly as powerful. That's why one of the first things that evil people do is try to gather a big following, and the next thing is usually to organize that following. Notice how doing that contrasts with what Jesus did.

Burning coals are what I think the crowd that stoned Stephen felt when they gnashed their teeth, covered their ears, and rushed at him. That's the kind of goodness I'm talking about.

Millard said...

I'm just learning about how to do this, but I see a big advantage in it. The same goodness that skewers the predators simultaneously encourages and strengthens their victims to reject them. Maybe my concern for those who suffer at the hands of predators is being mistaken on this blog as a conciliatory/compromising attitude towards predators? That's just a guess. What I know is that the goodness route is MUCH more powerful than the routes we instinctively take in response to evil. When I talk about "shining a light" so to speak or responding to evil with good, this gives you an idea of what I mean.

Easy, trivial example: the next time some jerk driver does some jerk thing to you on the road, get his attention and smile and wave at him, just like you came off the boat yesterday. Better yet, the next time YOU are a jerk on the road and someone gets overly pissed off at you, since you already have their attention, smile and wave at them. I've done this and then laughed for the next few miles thinking about that silly macho hothead fuming all the way to the office and venting to his cohorts. I just ruined his entire morning. ;)

Seriously, though. Situations that used to leave me shaken, even physically trembling, now range from puzzling to downright funny. It's strange how encounters with SF people have hit me even harder than encounters with people who intended me serious physical harm. I haven't ever faced anyone with a gun, but I had a guy come at me with a golf club once. It used to be that I would have gladly faced crazy meth-head golf club guy a dozen times instead of a single encounter with an SF character assassin.

When I was going to face an SF assassin it used to be, "How am I going to get through this?" Now I feel armed. I have faith I didn't have before. I have goodness at my disposal that I didn't have before: real, practical, good things and good approaches that I can use to express my good intentions. Now, it's more like, "Let's see how they're gonna like THEM apples!" I still get stopped, stumped, or frazzled sometimes, but only for a while. I wouldn't trade it for the world. :)

john said...

Millard:
Appreciate your explaining your deepest motives and appreciate how you are struggling to not repay evil with evil. But the hell you have been through shows. That is the witness that this blog is - how SF creates "psychological hell" for people who do not conform to its rules/regulations which are far from the spirit of Christ and based on erroneous interpretations passed off as "revelation" and "the truth".
The problem with the SF is that while it practices "subtle and coercive thought reform" with its members practised by core leaders who have been trained from youth and in families to have one-track minds, this itself is its means of protection and this prevents any deep study by "outsiders".
This is an amazing achievement over a 100 years of its sectarian existence - this hidden-ness. SF members will never freely disclose their religious affiliation to anyone (except of course in Norway where their numbers are adequate enough for them to be visible).
In India, for instance, SF members always introduce themselves as non-denominational, evangelical and as being part of the "free', "house-church" movement. It will take someone who is in contact with SF at least six months before he or she is told what this group is and where it is headquartered and how its core leadership can be only "Norwegian". There are some second-string people allowed into this space because they are fully "loyal" - leaders like Jether Vinson and Michael Twilley or Gsry Fenn in the USA. To be in the top league you have to learn Norwegian like Gershom Twilley, one of the key people behind Alag or be married into the core leadershiop family and dynastic lines.;
Once inside SF, it is only after some time of integration and commitment that members are taught that Jesus was only a man like us who had to cleanse himself of sin, etc. By the time they are taught this they would have been effectively cut off from friends and family and all other Christians and Christian teachings and writings other than the prescribed books of the sect so that they almost unwittingly confess that this is the only true church and that all the others are harlots. They would have been "addicted" to or "possessed" by the sect's spirit by then and would be unable and helpless to distinguish between the group spirit and the Holy Spirit after a while. This subtle spiritual brainwashing is also clearly recommended by J O Smith in his Letters, where he states that once a person comes into the 'church", he cannot claim that he can hear directly from God but must submit to the apostles and prophets. This is a recipe for control of souls.
So some months into the group (if you come from outside - it's easier to do this to those who are inside already from childhood) they are taught to be in an us-them mode and to be cautious, careful, paranoid. "Because everyone else is evil." The fish is caught in the net and ready to be fried.
They are also taught subtly and cleverly that insiders know "the hidden body of Christ" and so "let's keep it hidden" because "now you are among the elect and chosen". They are thus eternally vigilant and suspicious of any "outsiders" who might be watching them or questioning them about beliefs or behaviour. They are even more paranoid about "insiders" who know how the group operates to isolate its "enemies within". So "bad insiders" are dealt with really harshly.
(more)

john said...

(contd)
All books, literature, web materials etc on SF is controlled across the world and written and propagated by "insiders". The books written by the Norwegian Kjell Arne Bratli lauding SF and its leaders are actually SF-backed and printed "propaganda". When New Brunstad (New Jerusalem) opened in 2004, Kjell Bratli was a guest of honor, an outsider who is more loyal that an insider! One of his reported statements was "You (SF) know how to deal with your enemies well enough." Through this man and a few others, SF has moved into some spheres of political influence. Their money bags can buy such influence now as they are no longer the simpler,though in-error SF, led by Sigurd Bratlie but a "smart corporation(s)".
This is now a group like the Church of Scientology. And just as those who have been battered in their identity and self by their experiences in Scientology really have no one to help them, so too with those whose identity and self has been marred for ever by SF. if you want your identity and self erased by the "cross", this is the group to go to. They do a thorough job of it. This is precisely why Millard could not find a "heart" inside the zombies or automatons he wants to reconcile with.
SF is a spiritual force claiming the name of Christ as warned against in Mathew 24. Its methods are not unlike many of the New Age groups that believe in human transformation - Landmark Forum, the old EST, etc.
The way to counter it is to raise a mighty cloud of prayer that will limit their expansion and shrink them back into their "compound" or rather "frog ponds". The extent of their shrinking is proportional to the raising up of the banner of prayer over the people they might potentially infect.
In other words, one needs to pray specifically and ask God to bind the bodies through which this spirit operates and spreads. There is authority in Jesus Christ to do this. Let all who come here join in the task of prayer more than in the task of analysis, especially in this season of Lent when Christians who acknowledge Jesus as Lord and God on earth fast and pray so that such spirits can be bound.

Mathew 24

4Jesus answered them, Be careful that no one misleads you [deceiving you and leading you into error].
5For many will come in (on the strength of) My name [appropriating the name which belongs to Me], saying, I am the Christ (the Messiah), and they will lead many astray.
11And many false prophets will rise up and deceive and lead many into error.
23If anyone says to you then, Behold, here is the Christ (the Messiah)! or, There He is!--do not believe it.

24For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and they will show great signs and wonders so as to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (God's chosen ones).
25 See, I have warned you beforehand.
26 So if they say to you, Behold, He is in the wilderness (desert)--do not go out there; if they tell you, Behold, He is in the secret places or inner rooms--do not believe it.

Brunstad is the secret place they speak of - the inner room. DO NOT BELIEVE IT. It will make a wilderness of your life unless you want to be a happy zombie!!

john said...

Harold:
You might find this useful or do you already know this site? SF is listed here.

http://www.icsahome.com/logon/elibdocview.asp?Subject=Family+Responses+to+a+Young+Adult%27s+Cult+Membership+and+Return

Íslenska said...

Harold:
You are the first here to turn reflective to my posts instead of spread the spines like a hedgehog. Keep it that way!

Sophie:
You still feed me with Bibleverses, but finally I will try to understand some of it. You write: "Love keeps no record of wrongs". So, how shall I understand it? Smiths Friends have no wrongs, or you have no love?

John:
You were complete wrong about this girls education according to information from Harold. Shall everything else you write about Smiths Friends be trusted in the same way? Or was this just a "notable exception"?

Millard:
You are a exact match to the pattern I already described about breaking with a religious group. You still seem reflective and really want to work on your relations to the people still in the group (including your family). The question is if the advices from this blog is good or bad for your reconciliation process. The attitude "I am the angel, you are the devil" never make reconciliation, but this is the attitude John want you to take.

Russian:
The website www.brunstad.org contain many stories about how people came to your group. Why is there no information about how your group will act if someone want to leave it?

RssnSpy6 said...

To Sophie,
Regarding, "Concerning this line of thought, I’d like to make two points. First, SF’s belief is that anyone not belonging to their group is part of the harlot. This cannot be denied, as it is printed in their materials. So, they have already judged and labeled anyone who is not part of their group."
--
If these printed materials were quoted, or sourced, before, I missed it. I would really like to know, for myself, what articles say that any person not in SF is part of the harlot.

Regarding, "I am, however, entitled to my opinion which is that ‘healthy minded, ‘mainstream’ Christians’ don’t implement church leader supervised visits with one’s own children/parents."
--
I agree that a church should not 'implement' church leader supervised visits in any kind of familial matter. What we don't have is all the information, which means that you are forming opinions based on incomplete information. You just don't know the circumstances... Neither do I. It is poor practice and completely irresponsible to do this.

To Harold,
Regarding, "I don’t believe we are “crying over 3 year old spilled milk.” I’m sure you talk like that to all who dare to question SF. That’s OK. You don’t hurt my feelings."
--I think I remember writing the 3-year old spilled milk comment month and months and months ago... why are you bringing it up now? I am unsure of the relevance it has to any recent posts. I also don't know what you mean by "I’m sure you talk like that to all who dare to question SF. That’s OK. You don’t hurt my feelings." To what post are you referring?

To Islenka,
Interesting question, "Why is there no information about how your group will act if someone want to leave it?"
--
SF has no membership rolls or forms, and no salaries or paid positions. Whoever comes, comes, and whoever leaves, leaves. As far as I know , if a member wants to leave there is no process they have to go through. There doesn't seem to be any reason for a voluntary organization to comment on how a person can 'unvolunteer.' Does this answer your question?

jarsmom said...

j

jarsmom said...

j

Giving it to god said...

Well it's official I signed up to help pull weeds at the salem fellowship the smith's friends cult I went to. I agree with something someone recently posted on this site, about being brainwashed into their cults "spirit" and being brainwashed into believing that "spirit" as being the "holy spirit" cause that totally happened to me......and it isn't the holy spirit it's something else.....close almost the holy spirit.
At my mainstream christian church I'm really filled with the real holy spirit and it's a extreme different experience then the "spirit" that filled me at the smith's friends church. The 2 spirits are close though. But they both couldn't be the holy spirit could they?
God's house can't be divided against itself. If 1 church is evil or in anyway harlot filled, surely the real holy spirit couldn't be there! But a fake decoy could!.......that was my smith's friends experience the fake decoy.
I've got to find a way to love the smith's friends, and I don't know how I'm going to do it, and to really forgive them........it's going to be hard real hard, but this is the road to recovery. And to recover from this cult is possible, cause the bible says "anything is possible for he who believes" it's just prooving to be real hard. But I will show up and I will pull weeds this month at the smith's friends cult dilligiently!

Millard said...

Giving It To God:

Just some friendly advice from what little I know of you from what you've written. Since you feel like it's going to be "real real hard" it might be a little soon to start interacting with SF again. You seem very raw from your experience. I was for many years. It takes time. You'll get there. When you do, you'll feel strong and confident. Until then, get healthy and strong with people you can trust. Besides, if God wants you to have contact with SF, you'll run into enough of them without trying, especially if you live near Keizer! :)

Millard said...

John and Harold,

When Goliath taunted the Israelites, some saw him as a giant. David saw him as an uncircumcised Philistine opposing God's army. When I compare what you have written about Smith's Friends to the attitudes of the Israelites intimidated by Goliath, and then compare it to the attitude of David who saw Goliath as so much bird and beast food, I have to say that your thinking resembles those who seem intimidated. This is underscored by the fact that you focus on what little I've written about the evils of SF and ignore the rest that I've written, apart from mentioning my "struggling to not repay evil with evil." I feel like asking, "Is anyone out there listening?"

No Israelite disagreed that Goliath needed to be slaughtered. They didn't think that he should be given quarter, compromised with, or reconciled with. That wasn't the problem. Courage wasn't even the problem. The problem was that they saw him as a giant, and this was because they focused on the wrong things: his stature, his strength, the strength and weight of his armor and his weapons, etc. Their lack of faith made them exaggerate the threat.

Smith's Friends is like a house of cards. The evils of behavior, preaching, and its attitude to the world around it are all examples of the great lengths to which Smith's Friends MUST to go to maintain their house of cards. They are examples of weakness. They are attempts to support and reinforce something that lacks strength and integrity. It takes a lot of work to alter people's perceptions so that they believe lies, because reality rejects untruths. Deception takes constant work to maintain it because reality constantly erodes it.

As long as people look at organizations like Smith's Friends as if they were Goliaths, it doesn't matter how much prayer, discussion, argument, or any other kind of effort they put into it: it all serves to reinforce the deception that they are fighting giants. We can react by screaming and jumping up on a chair if we see a spider on the floor, or we can squash it. The difference is not determined by the spider, but by our perceptions shaped by our beliefs (the real kind that we hold in our hearts, Harold, not doctrines.) I said that SF isn't the threat that people here seem to think. The response was that I was trying to minimize the evils of SF. I really encourage you to consider the lack of faith that makes SF seem SO evil and like such a force to be reckoned with.

Just to illustrate SF's weakness: around New Year's 1994, after "The Brothers" had "silenced" me, I asked the leading brother in Seattle to set up a meeting with Kaare Smith, who was scheduled to visit Seattle. He contacted Kaare Smith, who told the leading brother that when I was ready to "humble myself and repent" Kaare would be willing to talk to me. Otherwise he refused to meet. About six months ago I renewed my offer to talk to Kaare Smith after being challenged by an SF member who claimed that Kaare and I did not talk because I had refused to. SF often has trouble with simple facts like that. I asked for Kaare's phone number, was promised it, and as yet have not received it. Well, that offer still stands.

Smith's Friends leaders have power because they have managed to get an group of people to believe that empowering them is a good thing. Outside of this support environment, Smith's Friends leaders have very little power, which is why I think they are reluctant to leave their cloistered environment and engage in open discussion.

I'm trying to understand why the responses here focus so much on the "evils" of SF. At the same time there seems to be little to no interest in what's been written about the faith and the power that are available to all of us to deal with such "evils." It's as if the latter has gone in one ear and out the other. Has it? If so, why is that?

(I can't believe I kept it to ONE post! ;))

Giving it to god said...

Bible says ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you........if you bang bang bang on the smith's friends door and love them and do good to them and do good to them and love them and love them......their house of cards is going to fall!
If you have faith of a mustard seed and say to a mountain move it's going to move - that's the word of god.
But I'm glad the smith's friends still exist, cause I need to love them really really love them......I have such a good opportunity to love my enemies and do good to them.
(I have long battled extreme amounts of hatred for the smith's friends and it isn't good - it's possible to love them if you consider how demon filled they are it ain't the real holy spirit in their church! It's this other "spirit" you all been talking about this "spirit" is really in their church. There's a slew of demons in this world and they have a hold over many many people.....I'm super fortunate in that sense not to be demon filled) Bible says it isn't a war against flesh and blood we are in.......Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Can those principalities of darkness that control the smith's friends church be overcame with good? Worth trying : ) prayer to prayer is good plan : )

just me said...

I still have nothing to say against SF, but from what I keep hearing lots of things make sense and make me thing how dumbs I was for all those years to keep trying to fix a mariage that GOD never wanted to have anyway my ex wife , everytime I try to talk to her, if it dont go her way , she hang up the phone on me, its been like that for 10 years, some people from SF when they try to help me ,they always try to make things look better then what they are, they really dont want to see reality, then they try to tell me that I may be depresss and need medication. Everytime someone dont agree with what they tell you , your not normal and they make sure they make you feel not normal. Its been 8 months I have been away from all them, and the only thing that really bother me its that I did not see my kids for 6 months, now my ex wanted me to sign paper to give up the rights on my kids and to give her so much money, she dont want to listen to whatever I have to see. I have been giving her lots of money since I move away , and the only reason why I move away it was to make twice the money I would make back home plus it cost me much less to live cause I live with my brother.
But I guess its still not enuff, I know how they work if something dont go their way they bring the law and court stuff. And their is no way of talking to them if your not into their religion , I never hear from one person who I thought was my best friend , he promised me longtime ago that he would be there for me not matter what, where is he now , nowhere , why because he knows that he screw up with my life and the easyer way out its to leave, I dont blame him but I think people that are not profesionnal , should stay away from other people probleme. I will still go trought life with or without SF , I dont need anyone , GOD knows what I need.

Harold said...

Russian: “To what post are you referring?” That would be a reference to your post on Feb 23, 2010, which you seem to have conveniently removed.

Millard: The more you write, the more I understand what you are trying to say and I think you are I are on the same page on many issues. But, it sounds like you believe that my thinking is influenced by your writings. With all due respect, I have done my own homework and formed my opinions long before you came into this discussion. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you joined this discussion.

I believe you are assuming that nobody here has tried to be nice to this SF group. That maybe even the community has labeled them and shunned them. As far as I know, that isn’t the case. It’s more of the opposite. Keith himself tried to meet with this SF leader to ask some questions and was threatened with legal action. The experience seen here is that it is the SF group that has shunned everyone else.

You said: “I think it's interesting that you assume that to "make friends" with SF you would be forced to compromise your beliefs. Why would this be necessary? People make friends across faith lines all the time, no problem. All kinds of Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and atheists are friends with each other. It happens everywhere.”

We have had this discussion on this blog before. I have many friends of different beliefs and that is not a problem for anyone I know. If we are to spread the word of Christ then we must be willing to accept those of different faiths (or no faith), engage and befriend them, in order to be the witness that Jesus commanded us to be, without compromising our beliefs, principles, and doctrine.

On the other hand, I know of a young person who was associated with this local fellowship some time ago. He/She was told point blank by a member that heshe had to get rid of all his/her old friends if he/she was going to belong to their church. In other words, he/she had to compromise his/her “beliefs” that having other friends was OK in order to be accepted into the SF church.

Isn’t Kaare Smith’s statement to you to humble yourself actually the same thing? Is he not, in essence, saying that you must give up your beliefs (including doctrine) and submit to SF (as in Kaare Smith) if you want to speak with him? Wouldn’t that also be an epitome of arrogance? Sounds like you won’t compromise your beliefs either, including doctrine.

On the subject of doctrine, you probably have much more knowledge of SF than me. I only have access to a couple of Sigurd Bratlie’s writings one of which is the Bride and The Harlot. In this book, Bratlie makes the following statement relating to the ten virgins in Mat 25: “The five foolish virgins do not represent the world; neither do they represent the RELIGIOUS WORLD – THE HARLOT – because they are virgins.”

Doesn’t this sum up their view of all other Christians outside of SF? And doesn’t this explain why they won’t fellowship with you, me, or anyone else. It is built into their beliefs, not mine.

By the way, I have written about this more than once over the time on this blog (forgive me for repeating myself) and maybe this will answer question Russian asked Sophie.

Harold said...

A comment to ‘Just be yourself’ and the subject of supervised visits. This reminds me of a story relayed to me by someone who knows the girl that is the subject of this blog. She ran into this girl at a Wal Mart some time ago and attempted to greet her. It turned out that girl was being escorted by a group of girls who were part of the church. As soon as this woman tried to approach this girl, these other SF girls surrounded her in order to prevent any contact between them.

It is behaviors like this, witnessed by a number of people in this community, which has contributed to my, and others, opinion of this “church”. At some point, if this group does not want to be labeled as a cult then they should prove it to this girl’s family.

Millard compared my writings to the Israelites who were intimidated by Goliath. I would prefer to relate my writings to the persistent widow in Luke 18.

I think we can all agree with John to join in prayer “so that such spirits may be bound”. For one thing is certain: God is bigger that Smith’s Friends. I put my hope and trust in Him, like ‘just me’ said.

jarsmom said...

Sorry, Ive ment to leave a comment
but for some reason, i have to re-
suscribe every time I try to post.

Islenka, I not sure I understand
exactly your objection to the posts
here? You claim you dont understan
scripture, but yet You stated love
does not keep a record of wrongs.
So does that mean bad behavior is
ignored.???? By that some token
should SF not keep a record of
(wrongs) done to them and not black
ball people???

GivingittoGod
Are you sure it's wise to go to
Salem and Pull weeds

Millard
We have not met, I am sure of it
The thing that frosts me the most
is all of the double standards.

Russian
Are you serious? You ask to be
shown where its written that SF
believes all others are the Harlot

jarsmom said...

Sorry, Ive ment to leave a comment
but for some reason, i have to re-
suscribe every time I try to post.

Islenka, I not sure I understand
exactly your objection to the posts
here? You claim you dont understan
scripture, but yet You stated love
does not keep a record of wrongs.
So does that mean bad behavior is
ignored.???? By that some token
should SF not keep a record of
(wrongs) done to them and not black
ball people???

GivingittoGod
Are you sure it's wise to go to
Salem and Pull weeds

Millard
We have not met, I am sure of it
The thing that frosts me the most
is all of the double standards.

Russian
Are you serious? You ask to be
shown where its written that SF
believes all others are the Harlot

Giving it to god said...

In response to jars mom if it's wise I should go pull weeds........that was my response to Millard's posts about being nice to the smith's friends he's the one that talked me into it : ) It's a stupid idea, but milliard is sure we should be nice to them : ) I might be killed my husband coming with my kids they may be killed, harassed something! But I feel like nothing else has worked......I've tried counseling......which was hard for me because the pastor of my church doesn't know much anything about the smith's friends most people don't and he didn't know the questions to ask me......and I don't know what all I need to talk about. I have a hard time seeing mainstream christianity as the body of christ, hardly no talk at all about denying oneself and taking up your cross and following jesus daily in the mainstream christianity............if jesus paved the way through the veil that is his flesh.........shouldn't all christians be talking about denying themselves and crucifying their fleshes etc. etc. I mean a lot a lot. If that's the whole goal of christianity to "overcome" all the flesh, all the lusts of the flesh. And you'd think they'd talk about the evils of the harlot and how horrible and terrible and god aweful worldliness is and the world is the spirit of the world. And fear it and eschew it and hate their fleshes much! With zeal and briming hot fire that god not spew them out of his mouth someday!

Giving it to god said...

But I still declare I can wear as many bangles bracelets as I want..........anythings possible for he who believes........and to the pure all things are pure. I'm against the smith's friends in their hard judgment against me for wearing makeup and jewelry and being a fashionable diva...........I enjoy being a diva and jesus came that I might have life more abundantly and my idea of a abundant life is definately not wearing potatoe sack smith's friends dresses and no makeup and no jewelry.......they paint their toenails like that's some special treat : p that's not a life abundant!

jarsmom said...

Sorry about the lack of puncuation
in my last post. I was being bid-
den come thither rather urgently to
the dinner table and didn't want to
loose my thought.

jarsmom said...

Keith
OH MY GOODNESS I figured out who
the bro is in owasso. I have met
him before and I am shocked that
he would engage in this kind of
behavior. When I was in he didnt
live in OK, and I have been think
ing that I didnt remember there
being a fellowship in OK. To me
he seemed a little less aggressive
than some of the others. I am very
dissapointed to hear this. I hope
he is reading. VERY DISSAPOINTED.
I just cant believe it.

Keith said...

Jarsmom: All this time you hadn't put that together?! Wow!

jarsmom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harold said...

Jarsmom: I would like to know which man you are referring to. The man that you met, where did he used to live? The high school teacher here in Owasso came from Ottawa. There is another family that moved here from Galesville, WI that has not been mentioned before on this blog. Although they are part of this fellowship they may be just as much victims of this SF leader as the girl is. I do want to make sure that we are fair to them.

The leading brother, who is the primary source of this discussion, is the one who originated in Canada. His profile used to be accessible on the former Brunstad web site but the current web site seems to have removed the links that give information on all the fellowships around the world. It is still out there but you can’t get to it from the BCC home page.

It has been mentioned here before that there are other families that have been harmed by this “church”, but most of the information and discussion concerns the girl. One of those mentioned was a young man who worked at a local phone store with one of the sons of this SF leader. The parents of this young man were concerned because of the behavior they had experienced since he had moved out of their home a year earlier. At the point of this story they had not spoken with him in 6 months, and they desperately wanted to have some contact with their son. When they found out that he was working at this phone store they decided to go to the store to try to talk with him.

He was alone in the store and as they parked the car he saw them and quickly locked the door to the store so that they could not enter and then he hid in the back.

The parents then left and waited some time before driving back to the store, this time parking on the side of the store and out of view. They then entered the store. As soon as he saw them enter the store he ran out of the back door, leaving the store unattended. The parents then left without having any opportunity to speak to their son.

Soon after the parents left, the son of this SF leader showed up at the store followed a few minutes later by the leader himself.

There are many questions that this brings up for me. Why is this young man (and the girl for that matter) so scared of his own parents that he would run and hide from them? I don’t know if this young man is actually a member of this local fellowship, but if he isn’t then why would the SF leader show up at the store to consult with his son and the young man after the parents left?

The reference has been made several times on this blog by both sides that “you will know them by their fruit”. What kind of fruit does this exhibit? How does a “church” group knowingly cause such pain and heartache to other families, at the same time, claim to have “victory over sin”?

I don’t care what belief or doctrines these other families subscribe to, it is not right to treat other families in this way. Jesus called Christians to be models of purity and righteousness in order to be a witness to others for God.

“Just me” talked about how the SF group tried to “help” him but look where he ended up. How much “help” did they do for Millard’s marriage? Did they help Friedrich’s family too.

Who are you serving when you “widow a young woman” by “character assassination” of the husband? Are you not, in the same sense, also creating orphans of the children? Is this righteousness that pleases God?

This group in Owasso is guilty of the same behavior. They have assassinated the character of the girl’s parents and essentially made her an orphan too. She doesn’t have time for family events or vacations with her own family yet spends a lot of time including travels all over the country with this SF family on their vacations and family events.

Millard said...

Harold,

You asked a lot of good questions. I just couldn't tell whether they were open questions or rhetorical. I think that there are answers to each of them.

jarsmom said...

Harold
The man I was referring to was from
Wisconsin, not Ottowa.
May be you all should try to deport
that guy. What an unfreaking beliveable story. I feel bad for
those parents and the boy, I would
be fuming. Just like I said. Personality disorders, the narcisisitic type. Just ask Millard

Millard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Millard said...

(Separate post, record of 2 singles, now 3, still intact...)

I did a little digging on Alice Miller. Here's an interesting quote from a Wiki article about her at http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Alice_Miller:

Drawing upon the work of psychohistory, Miller has analyzed writers Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka and others to find links between their childhood traumas and the outcome of their lives. She maintains that all instances of mental illness, crime and falling prey of religious cults are ultimately caused by childhood trauma and inner pain not processed by a helper which she has come to term an "enlightened witness". She extends this trauma model to include all forms of child abuse, including those that are commonly accepted (such as spanking) which she calls poisonous pedagogy (schwarze Pädagogik).

I'm personally not sold that childhood is the end-all determinant of the rest of our lives. It is DEFINITELY the begin-all determinant, though. I don't think that childhood trauma or rearing spells the answer to whether a person will or will not get involved in a "cult" when given the opportunity. However, I think that UNRESOLVED childhood trauma can definitely contribute to someone getting involved.

When I first got involved in SF, there were a number of my good friends who acted like SF gave them a rash. I couldn't understand how they could be so certain that SF was wrong when their reasons for it seemed so weak. Among them was my own brother to whom I have ALWAYS felt a very deep bond. I think a major difference between those of us who got into SF vs. those who got what they were really about had to do with whether or not we had learned independence from parental-like authority and security.

I wasn't traumatized as a kid, but I was very much a pleaser after all that good parental approval. My brother left home at 18, joined the army, became an MP, and at the time we encountered SF, he was 22 or 23, working as a city cop, and got married to his wife. They are still together by the way! He had already learned the value of other people's approval (VERY much a motivator in SF) compared to his own sense of what was acceptable and unacceptable: very little!

I think childhood factors that contribut to "cult" involvement have less to do with childhood trauma that might have occurred and more to do with the dependence on approval from authority that it engenders or that might be present for other reasons.

Harold said...

Millard: My questions were mostly rhetorical in nature but feel free to comment.

I would like to comment on your statement: “I watched grown, apparently intelligent adults behave as if they had somehow dropped rational thought out the window on their way home from work.”

A lot of people believe that cult victims must be less intelligent than “normal” people. Or that they are only those wacko groups living in isolated compounds somewhere.

One of the things I have learned is that most victims of groups like this are usually intelligent. They are people that are seeking something more. They tend to be more inquisitive than most people.

This is one reason that college campuses are such rich fishing grounds for these groups. There is a steady stream of intelligent young people who are in transition, usually away from home for the first time, a little naïve maybe, a little too trusting, and looking for new friends.

I had a conversation with a woman once who is married to a medical doctor. Both of them were in a group and have since left. She talked about how he was able to go and work all day at the office and deal logically with medical issues but it was kind of like he flipped a switch when he got home and fell right into submission to the group leader. He was able to compartmentalize his critical thinking skills and just kind of turned things off when the leader was around.

I have also had the opportunity to talk with a number of former victims of other groups (not SF) and they have all been highly intelligent and successful people. And I think they would agree with you that childhood trauma is not a good indicator for cult involvement.

Sophie said...

Millard: “All they could hear when I spoke was my anger, my bitterness, my frustration, etc. They couldn't hear what I was saying because I didn't say it in a friendly tone.”

Even if one speaks in a ‘friendly tone’ but holds a different view not in agreement with them and their agenda or make inquiries that they don’t know how or don’t want to answer, the conversation is over, the relationship is severed or severely wounded. As you’ve said before, they don’t handle criticism well. Instead of valuing differences of opinion, truth, and open dialogue, they run and hide, threaten, lie, call names, belittle, and/or backbite. That is a defense mechanism when people don’t know how or don’t want to answer questions. Instead of dialoging and just saying they ‘don’t have all the answers, but they’ll listen, research, read, study and let’s talk again’, that’s the end of the discussion and/or relationship with that individual. This childish behavior can be witnessed even among the nation’s leaders in the political arena.

From what you’ve said, it sounds as if when you began asking questions and/or disagreeing, the ‘defamatory campaign’ claiming you had an evil spirit began which destroyed the relationship between you and your family. One can exist in such an environment as long as they promote the agenda, behave properly, or are in agreement with everything that the group teaches and believes. As long as one doesn’t have any opposing thoughts, ideas, creativity, or activities involving others outside those in their ‘group’, they’re not ridiculed, belittled, attacked, manipulated. From other testimonies and examples we’ve heard on here, this is part of the agenda.

Millard: “On the other hand, they would swallow whole the most unfounded, ludicrous notions simply because they heard it from a "leading brother," and you know that leading brothers ALWAYS talk to their sheep in kind, friendly tones.”

How does one suddenly become scared of and turn against his/her own family including spouse/parents/siblings/and more? How does one become convinced that his/her own child/children/parents/spouse are suddenly against them, are evil, are of satan, are going to harm them? That doesn’t just happen without external forces being applied such as an intentional ‘defamatory campaign’ and/or an all out attempt to discredit trusted and loved ones. Those would be good examples of someone ‘swallowing whole the most unfounded, ludicrous notions’.

SF teaches and has apparently bought the idea that they are the chosen bride of Christ, the anointed ones, the True Church. The sad but curious thing is that many such groups have also made the very same claim. This type of teaching tends to bring out arrogant behavior because it reinforces the idea that ‘we’re better than those in other groups’. That is not Christ-like or Biblical and an idea that causes division among believers. The Bible is clear that God loves the whole world and desires for ALL to come to know, worship, follow, and be a witness for Him. He really doesn’t care what we look like on the outside, what social status we’re in, or what ‘church’ or denomination we belong to. What He is interested in our commitment to Christ Jesus, not a commitment to any affiliation or church group.

john said...

Sophie: You are right. Even if you are friendly to SF but do not see eye to eye they will be scoffing at you behind your back.
Their fundamental principle is as you said: We are better than all these fools out there in the world and in the religious world (the harlot)".
If you read Kare Smith's book "Shepherd and Prophet - A guide to the Pastoral Ministry and Church Life" (sic), the only tone one can get is about how perfectly right he and his brothers have been on all matters (almost exactly like the Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility of the leaders and the group. It is about how they are able to discern how "evil" others are. In one section, he crows about how those whom this so-called "church" persecuted during the "revival" have "returned" to him personally and plead to be forgiven of "their evil" by him and how therefore they have their places "restored" in heaven for them, etc.
It is the most self-adulatory, arrogant, self-justifying, self-pleasing and praising document one has ever read. All this is also is couched in "proof texts" from the Bible and citing the "lineage" of JO Smith, Bratlie, Asklaksen, etc.
There is not a single instance in this book where Kare Smith mentions any "error" or "weakness" or "folly" of his own or where he is repentant about anything in his own life. On the contrary, it is about how perfect he and the "leading" brothers are and how all the others are "evil".
But that is exactly how the leaders are trained in SF. They are fully brainwashed into believing that they are the "elect", the "perfect" one, the ones in whom the "word of God dwells bodily", "prophets" and "sinless" in their daily actions. In one place, Kare Smith speaks of how "apostleship" was bestowed on him by Bratlie.
And so on and so forth.
It's incredible how such people fall so deeply into narcissism and delusions of both grandeur and paranoia even while claiming to be "carrying the cross". The psychologist C G Jung often spoke of how those who seek to destroy their own "ego" automatically become supreme "egotists" and this seems to be the process that has entrapped these poor souls and they are unaware of it.
As a result, personality disorders are common. That is but natural when one splits and divides one's humanity/personality into evil/good, us/them, spirit/soul, elect/non-elect, church/bride, etc. People with deep inner conflicts end up not being "whole" (which is what Jesus came to do for us), but really as split and confused personalities.
We can only pray that they can be "delivered from evil" (spirits) even as Jesus prayed. The least we can do is pray "Lord, just as you have separated and gathered into sheaves for the judgement on the Day of His Coming groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Scientologists and other such sects and cults, please separate this group too so that they can no longer deceive others about the glory of Jesus Christ trampled underfoot as another Adam born in sin. May they learn the glory of the "man from heaven" who is "from above".

john said...

STRONG CONDITIONING:
Children born into this group are continually and systematically conditioned into the mode of thinking of the sect so that they also end up with the splits in their mind and lives mentioned in the previous posts.
Here for instance is what Seattle "church" did to reinforce the conditioning in their children:

Sunday School - Brunstad!
Seattle News
Sunday, 07 March 2010 22:31

Last week, Sunday School was a little different from our usual Bible stories. This time, we learned about the "best place in the world"--Brunstad! Since very few of the children in Seattle have been to Brunstad, various videos and pictures were used to bring to life the Brunstad experience!! Especially summer conferences and all the fun activities that kids can do there. At the end of the meeting, the children thought of one thing they would like to do when they go to Brunstad, and then drew a picture of themselves doing that activity. We are going to send these pictures to Mandelblomsten, where they might be published in one of the upcoming issues. We are thankful for Brunstad and for another fun Sunday School!

Note the use of media to condition them and the slogan that Brunstad is the "best place on earth". This is the practice at all levels throughout these "churches" (and true sect members believe Brunstad is New Jerusalem) for children, youth, women, etc.
The "leading brothers" prime responsibility is to see that everyone is well conditioned and that the groups are well sealed off from "outsiders" and "opposers". This explains why they always try to crowd out anyone who tries to have contact with someone whom they have dragged into the group using their psychological techniques.
You will find that the "weak" ones in the group or freshers are always shadowed by someone else in the group to ensure that he or she does not get "deceived" by those who are "of the world" or "of the harlot" or that he or she does not "expose" some of the weird aspects of the sect. This explains the frightened behaviour of the boy in Owasso in the phone store(There are stories of similar behaviour in India too) and the story of how the girl was crowded and surrounded by church "spies' when she had an encounter with others.
The more we read about & understand what is going on, the more we ought to pray specifically - by name even as the Lord has told us - for the people in this sect so that these spirits of bondage can be bound. We need to pray by name for the leaders of this group - if the spirit they are operating in is bound, the "sheep" can go free to their Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, away from their human mediators like Kare Smith, etc.
"For we war not again flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and thrones and dominions and spiritual wickedness in high places."
"And you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free."

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harold said...

Here is another story that I have decided to share. There was another young person several years ago who knew one of this man’s sons. He asked about the girl who moved in with this “church”. Here was the response:

“(__), you were almost there. You almost got it but your parents held you back. (__) gets it. She understands that her parents are controlling and demanding.”

Now as a young person, I can understand believing that your parents are too demanding. But what has this got to do with being “more serious Christians”? This young man did not know the girl’s parents. He had no basis for judging this girl’s parents like this.

Based on earlier discussions about how SF focuses on Luke 14:26, this statement illustrates how this group has, intentionally and with malice, come between this girl and her family, and they still continue to work this way.

I would like to bring up this thought. What good parents, if they care and love their children and want to raise them up to be healthy moral people, aren’t to some degree demanding and controlling of their children, including teenagers? I can see how easy it would be for an unscrupulous church leader to twist that type of parental guidance in the mind of a young person into something that can be used against their parents.

I will also share another story that illustrates the hypocrisy of this group. Several years before this, while one of their sons was in high school, he tried to go somewhere with some friends. The family lives on a cul-de-sac, and when they discovered their son getting in the car with these young people, they blocked the street with their car to keep him from leaving and used several obscenities with their son’s friends.

So who is controlling and demanding? The family that moves their daughter to a dorm room at a college campus, or the family that blocks the road to keep their son from going somewhere with his friends? Or is this just “strong conditioning” by the SF group? (more rhetorical questions)

jarsmom said...

Harold
I am not suprised at all by the
first story. The second, well,
I guess I just don't get it. It
seems like whats good for the goose
isn't necessarily good for the
gander.

Giving it to god said...

geez hours from now........I will at salem fellowship the smith's friends cults compound near me. I feel it's something I need to do - pull their weeds, if I could sit and visit with them, forgive them.........be good for me......pry be good for them.
I'm at the point I can do this. My life has moved on in a good direction : )
I can view their calendar now - that's a hopeful sign. (though recently their young brothers decided to go shooting guns for fun......maybe they trying to scar the $#%#$% out of me?) But I can view their calendar that is a good peace making sign!
Hopefully they'll let me take lots of pics for my blog : ) people are curious about this cult I get a lot of hits on my blog. I enjoy it : ) though might spin my blog some in a rockabilly direction soon, I'm all about the rockabilly scene - these days I need my cup of tea and my bee bop music : ) have a great day everyone!

Íslenska said...

John: You earlier wrote: "The objective of this blog is not to name people." Good to know.

John and Sophie:
You seem to share a common tactic. When a difficult question come and you can't answer, you wait and hope the question will be forgotten. Sophie wrote: "they (SF) don’t handle criticism well". Then should you be good examples.

I repeat therefore my questions:

Sophie:
You write: "Love keeps no record of wrongs". So, how shall I understand it? Smiths Friends have no wrongs, or you have no love?

John:
You were complete wrong about this girls education according to information from Harold. Shall everything else you write about Smiths Friends be trusted in the same way? Or was this just a "notable exception"?

Russian:
You wrote: "As far as I know , if a member wants to leave there is no process they have to go through"
You mean no formal process, or that there is no (emotional/social) process at all when a person will leave a religious group?

RssnSpy6 said...

To Millard:
You said, "So, this is me turning the other cheek to Smith's Friends. I welcome them, not for the purpose of "going back" to them, but for the purpose of meeting "in the light" just as John says in his letter, (one of SF's favorite sayings when I was in the group, btw.) A lot of time has passed. As Russian implies, maybe things have changed. If they meet me, cool. If they slap me on the other cheek, that makes things pretty clear. I can't turn any more cheeks to them, 'cuz I've only got two!"

I hope you don't take Jesus' word literally on this--i.e. give only 2 chances. In another place Peter asks Jesus how many times they should forgive their brother, 7 times 7? Jesus answers with 70 times 7. There is always room to forgive.

To Harold:
You said, “To what post are you referring?” That would be a reference to your post on Feb 23, 2010, which you seem to have conveniently removed."

I've forgotten what this was about, but I do know that the post i deleted on the 23rd was just a duplicate of the one right below it. My computer was running slow so I got impatient and pressed the send button twice. If there is still an issue that went unanswered let me know so we can resolve it, or just let it pass.

To jarsmom:
You said, "Russian
Are you serious? You ask to be
shown where its written that SF
believes all others are the Harlot"

I am serious. I think the book, the Bride and the Harlot, is being referred to, but I'd like to know which passage leads you to believe that Bratlie calls everyone not in SF a Harlot.

To Islenka:
You said, "Russian:
You wrote: "As far as I know , if a member wants to leave there is no process they have to go through"
You mean no formal process, or that there is no (emotional/social) process at all when a person will leave a religious group?"

I meant no formal process. I think that there would be an emotional and social detaching (on the part of the leaver) that would have to go on if the person really meant to cut all ties with a religious group. It would also depend on why that person was leaving.

Sophie said...

Islenska said: "Love keeps no record of wrongs". So, how shall I understand it? Smiths Friends have no wrongs, or you have no love?”

NIV version of that 1 Cor. 13:5 is, “…it (love) keeps no record of wrongs.”

NAS says, “(love) does not take into account a wrong suffered.”

King James says, “(love) thinketh no evil.”

English Standard says, “it is not irritable or resentful”

New Century Version says, “does not count up wrongs that have been done.”

Beg your pardon about not answering; sometimes in this dialogue, another person will make a comment or answer a question with what seems a sufficient reply, which I believe Jarsmom did in her March 3 post.

I thought her reply was adequate for what seemed a rhetorical question, but since you seem insistent that I answer, I’ll do so. Your question was an either/or, black/white type of question…you give only two options for an answer. Only supplying two choices when dealing with very young children, who have not yet learned that there may be more options and choices available to them, may be wise. But as adults, we are conscious that not everything is so black/white. So giving only two options may not be so wise.

Your first choice was that ‘SF has no wrongs’. Smiths’ Friends, as any other group, is made up of people. All people are sinners and to claim anything else is self-delusion. So, we know that SF does have wrongs (sin) because it is an organization made up of people.

1 Jn 1:8, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

So, that leaves the next choice, that I ‘have no love’. Although, I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior and I love people, I’ve never claimed to love the Smiths’ Friends ‘organization and its erroneous teachings’. I may love the people in the group, but not the organization itself. Jesus loves people, but not the sin we commit. When He met the woman at the well, He didn’t just ignore what she was doing or pretend to not notice or that it was acceptable behavior. He pointed out her sin and told her to repent. Was He keeping a record of wrongs? Does that mean He had no love? According to Scripture, the answer to that is ‘no’. He loved her so much that He wanted her to be in right standing with God. Loving others doesn’t necessarily mean we go around pointing out every time we have a difference of ‘opinion’ in an effort to get others to agree with everything what we think or do. But, loving people also means we want to see them walking in truth, not being taken advantage of, not being separated from loved ones, not walking around in self-delusion that they are better than others because they are the chosen bride of Christ or the only ones with the truth.

As has been stated on here before, sin separates us from God. Jesus came to reconcile us to Him. This blog has over and again revealed the erroneous teachings of a group that makes the claim that it is Christian, yet has hurt many people in many ways. You may or may not agree but, I believe it is important for the behaviors and the teachings to be revealed so perhaps others will not be deceived, hurt, and have their family torn apart by the erroneous teachings of this group as others have. How is that not having love?

John 8:32, “and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

I hope this will answer your question.

jarsmom said...

I like your answer sophie, I dont
even remember what I said on March
3rd. But it is attutides and mind
sets we are talking about and not
people.
On t he other hand, What we are say
ing is posted on this site hosted
by Keith, for all to read, leaving
Islenska to believe we alone are
keeping a record of wrongs. I would like to submit that there is
plenty of record keeping going
in SF meeting halls and in their
homes when they are talking about
the harlott that is speaking against them. Nor has she been the
victim of slander after leaving.
Again, maybe she could have a little chat with Millard, they have
quite a record on him, Ive heard
them Islenska, with my own ears.

Russian
I do not mean to sound caustic. I
know you are a young girl from Salem. I have no beef with you or
any other SF. The thing that is
frustrating is to know what is
truly believed, and what is in
black and white don't always match
up. As memory serves me correctly
brother chickenyard was maybe not
as dogmatic as my leading bro.
With him there was no question,
any one not SF was a harlott, per-
iod. That was what was taught and
that was the impression created.
But of course, if not in black and
white, there you have plausable
deniability. Its just like the
skirts and buns from bygone days.
YOu would be hard pressed to find
an SFer that would admit to or an
article that stated women had to
wear dresses. But in practice,
different story, you could come for
a while, but very soon enough the
peer pressure would begin, little
things said etc. Some sister wold
say how "happy I am now that I have
light on wearing modest clothing"
Then not 2 minutes later someone
saying ohhhhh we dont say women have to wear dresses, God speaks to
them. Then after the "sister be-
gins to don the skirts,she is
awarded with priases and accalades
from the congregation, on getting
light regaurding propper dress for
a sister. I understand it may not
be that way now, but I am using
this for an exapmple. I do miss
some of the sisters there, they
were good to me even after I left.
So kudos to them.

Harold said...

Jarsmom: What is it that you don’t get? Is it the part about how parents, in teaching children, by definition are somewhat controlling of those children? Or the part about how this family intentionally undermines that parental authority in other families yet exhibits unreasonable control and demands over their own children as being hypocritical?

Islenska: If you are going to hold people to task in answering questions then you should follow your own advice and answer my questions. Ref my post Jan 20.

Regarding your issue about the girl’s education and John’s post, I don’t have a problem with what John said. I wasn’t trying to argue with him on that point. He was correct in that most groups like this are very sexist when it comes to roles women are allowed to have in society. And most groups don’t promote education beyond the basics. I have read numerous stories about cult groups that recruit off of college campuses and all of those victims dropped out of school.

I just wanted to point out that this girl is different. She doesn’t fit that stereotype. I would also add that this SF leader has 10 children and until recently none of them attended college. From what I understand, this SF leader expressly discouraged his children from attending college.

Russian: I do think that the time stamps on your posts on Feb. 23 don’t support your story, but I really don’t want to belabor the point. I can let it pass.

Giving it to god said...

I lived (I kinda recogned I would live, they'd go down in such a pile of flames if they actually killed me - not to say they won't murder me in the future - they appear to be getting worse and worse - not better I couldn't see jesus in any them at all........many them looked to be pulling weeds etc. out of duty one couple I talked to said, "they want us to pull those weeds" didn't pick up the vibe none that they really wanted to pull those weeds - more the vibe this is what is expected of us.......such were my observations anyways, no jesus and not much enthusiasm for the work at hand well at times some them were enthusiastic - one point I was pulling weeds as fast as I could so the kids behind me spraying the weeds wouldn't get to the weeds I was pulling........1 them came up to 2 feet away from me with that spray!!!!!!! Like seriously spraying! I decided he would actually spray me and left to pull weeds somewhere else!) pic of me holding weeds at the smith's friends compound on my latest blog post http://givingittogod.blogspot.com/

Harold said...

In response to Millard’s quote on March 19 about turning the other cheek, Russian said: “I hope you don't take Jesus' word literally on this--i.e. give only 2 chances. In another place Peter asks Jesus how many times they should forgive their brother, 7 times 7? Jesus answers with 70 times 7. There is always room to forgive.”

I agree with Russian in that “There is always room to forgive.” Jesus teaches a great deal about forgiveness, but He doesn’t just talk about it – He actively demonstrated it by the way HE forgave those who scorned and sinned against Him. I believe He still forgives us today. So, if one takes into account all the passages on the concept or idea of forgiveness, it is apparent that Jesus wants us to forgive others. I don’t believe Jesus meant that we should forgive only two times any more literally than He meant the words in Luke 14:25-27, yet SF “steadfastly” teach those passages and in fact use them to tear loved ones apart.

RssnSpy6 said...

To jarsmom;
I don’t think you sound caustic, but you’ve made some wrong assumptions. I am a male in my late 20’s and at one time lived on the west coast.
I don’t know who the leading brother was in your fellowship to say anything comparing him to the leading brother in Salem (if I got your drift).
Thank you for acknowledging that, “I understand it may not be that way now.” That means quite a bit to me.

To Harold;
Maybe we should just let this timestamp issue pass… But… It is one thing to doubt whether I’ve told the truth, it is another to state evidence to back your doubt. The time stamps are at most one minute and 59 seconds apart (because there are no seconds recorded). I am interested to know why you think my explanation is not truthful? It seems perfectly plausible that my computer experienced a slow period during which I clicked the submit button twice.

“Steadfastly” preach the verses in Luke to tear families apart… Harold, what does that passage in Luke mean to you? What did Jesus mean when He told His disciples that they couldn’t be disciples unless they ‘hated’ their father, etc, etc…? Teach me.

Millard said...

Hey guys, turning the other cheek isn't about forgiveness. It's about dealing with evil people.

Jesus was trying to explain the distinction between true righteousness and the hypocritical righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Resisting evil, loving only those who love you, and greeting only brothers makes sense to hypocrites. Overcoming evil with goodness, loving your enemies, and shining/showering goodness on the evil and the good does not make sense to hypocrites, who are people that only practice righteousness in ways that can be seen, understood, and appreciated by other people.

How did you make the leap from turning the other cheek to forgiveness?

One more question. How does following Jesus' advice in Matt 5 make us perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect?

Millard said...

Russian,

It's very clear what Luke 14:26 means. Jesus obviously wasn't preaching hatred for people, especially not those who are already dear to us. Anyone that wants to be Jesus' disciple must have no higher priority than following him. Simple. If someone finds his devotion or love for father or mother or wife or children or brothers or sisters competes with his love for Jesus, he needs to hate them instead. Here's where SF shows its immaturity in understanding.

Obviously, it isn't the father or mother or wife or children or brothers or sisters who are at fault for the fact that the would-be disciple is too attached to them. SF acts as if they are to blame. The problem actually lies with the would-be disciple. In the case of SF members, if they are faced with attachments to others that compete with their devotion to Jesus, they should be crying "I am the man!" (a favorite SF saying related to self-acknowledgment taken from 2 Samuel 12:7) not "I hate you!" Instead of admitting that the problem lies in their undue attachment to that person (idolatry), they act as if the problem lies in the person that they think should be hated.

Jesus isn't making a doctrinal statement here. He is giving practical advice. That would-be disciple needs to hate the object of his undue attachment in order to detach from it. This is exactly what teenage rebellion is about. However, if the teenager does not move beyond the "hating" stage and realize that the parents are not the problem, we would be right to say that the teenager failed to mature.

Smith's Friends clearly stay stuck in the hatred stage. Judging by the way that SF members practice this saying of Jesus, he should have said, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not ALIENATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." When the "hated" person is not a member of SF, the behavior of SF members towards him/her/them is often intentionally alienating. Of course it gets excused as "righteousness" by citing Jesus' words as if they were doctrine. A SF member is considered by the group to "hate" these people only after they engage in alienating behavior. And oddly enough, when the father or mother or wife or children or brothers or sisters are Smith's Friends members, they are not "hated" the way that those who are not members are "hated."

The irony is that SF's understanding of these things leads them to a "righteousness" that is even WORSE than the scribes and Pharisees, because they treat those who they are naturally attached to worse than than they do complete strangers. This isn't even as righteous as those who greet only their brothers and love only those who love them. Of course, the fact that breaking natural bonds of affection is exactly what the group is after is lost on them. Consider Rom 1:28-32 and 2 Tim 3:1-4. Being "without natural affection" (KJV) is a characteristic of the godless, not of a disciple.

It's just amazing to me how an entire group can blithely condone cold-heartedness in the name of a God of love.

Harold said...

Russian: Regarding the time stamps, I apologize. Looking back again at the several postings you made on that date, your position is plausible. This blog does funny things sometimes. The links seem to disappear and not all posts are displayed sometimes. So what post was I referring to? Don’t know, can’t pull it up now. Sorry, let’s move on.

Regarding Luke 14:26, I invite you to look up my post on April 26, 2008. Also search the word ‘steadfastly’ to find brother Avy’s comments on March 29, 2008.

I would also like to add some more comments. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says “ If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus also said in Mark 7 that if you curse your mother and father you must be put to death.

Mark 7:6-13 “He replied, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

This also shows up in Mat 15.

In Mark 13:12, Jesus is talking about the end times and the evil that will come. And in that context one of the evils to come is this: “Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.”

There are a lot more places in the Bible that talk about honoring and obeying parents than not. Luke 14:26 is the exception. This would seem to indicate that the Bible contradicts itself. But if the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God, would it contradict itself?

I might add that Jesus did not qualify His statements to say this only applies if they believe in Me, or they are Christian, or Smith’s Friends. Jesus caused a huge divide among the Jewish people at that time. Some children probably accepted Jesus as Lord while their parents didn’t. And Jesus never taught that they should rebel against their parents if they didn’t believe.

So if this girl’s parents are believers in Jesus Christ and Smith’s Friends proclaim to believe in Jesus Christ, is it scriptural to teach that she should hate her parents?

Harold said...

Here is another explanation I found that examines the cultural language use of the word hate.

“Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)
Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other.”

Sophie said...

Millard and Harold have both made some valid and interesting comments concerning two different verses about which I’d also like to comment.

Millard also asked: “How does following Jesus' advice in Matt 5 make us perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect?”

The Greek translation for the word ‘perfect’ in this passage means ‘mature’ or ‘complete’.

Matt. 5:38-48: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect (complete, mature), therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (complete, mature).”

Romans 12:17-21 and 1 Peter 3:8-9 are other passages that also instruct Christians how to deal with evil people or those who wrong us.

I agree that ‘turning the other cheek’ isn’t referring to forgiveness, but rather instructions on how to deal in a righteous, Christ-like manner with someone who treats us in wrong or evil ways. Jesus tells us to do what is right in the eyes of everyone, be kind to everyone, live at peace (harmony) with everyone (as much as it depends on us). Turning the other cheek means making no attempt to ‘repay evil for evil’ or retaliate or get even with someone but allow for God’s vengeance/wrath.

Luke 14:26, “ If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple.”

This seems to be one of those verses that can be difficult to understand. But, it is only a part of the bigger whole. I agree with Harold when he states, “There are a lot more places in the Bible that talk about honoring and obeying parents than not.” Jesus obviously knows how much value healthy minded people place on relationships between family members and the value that most people place on one’s own life. I believe that is why He uses this hyperbole to make His point about being His disciple. I use the words ‘healthy minded’ because there are many families that have been torn apart by one thing or another. But one thing is certain; satan is always the underlying cause when families are torn apart. He uses many different tactics such as addiction to drugs, alcohol, money, deceit, secrecy, lies, infidelity, in order to break loved ones apart. He came to kill, steal, and destroy, including families.

Jesus’ didn’t intentionally set out to break loved ones apart. Because He is God manifest, God in the flesh, He is a creator; satan is the destroyer. Jesus was making the point that we are to love Him so much more than the ones we love the very most here on earth - our own family members, and even our own life. If we have to make a choice to love, honor, obey, worship, follow Jesus OR other people OR our own desires, Jesus has to be first priority. The love we have for our family should pale in comparison to the love we have for Jesus. It doesn’t mean that we should actually hate our family, but to the abundant love, awe, and attachment we have toward Jesus, in comparison, it would seem as hate. Only Jesus will get us connected to God. There is no other way.

Sophie said...

But, we aren’t to reject our family members just because we choose to ‘go to a different church’. There are occasions where someone from another ‘religion’ (Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientology) may accept Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior only to find that his/her whole family turns their back on the newly converted Christian. But, for someone to claim Christianity and reject, hate, separate, despise, alienate, be too busy for, whatever one wishes to label it, his/her own family, is against what Christ is all about, which is love. That is a favorite, commonly used verse of religious cults who use it out of context in order to purposely cause hatred and separation among family members. And, what’s the purpose of this?

Jesus discusses the love of wealth and possessions with his disciples in the 16th and 18th chapters of Luke also. So, do the SF members, who take very literally the passages in Luke 14:26, also take very literally these passages and sell all their possessions? Would they give their possessions away to the poor, someone who needed help paying a hospital bill for surgery even if that person wasn’t part of SF group? Because Jesus knows each of our hearts, He also knows what is the most important to us. For some it would be possessions and wealth, but I guess most people would say that their family is at the top of the list.

Harold: “So if this girl’s parents are believers in Jesus Christ and Smith’s Friends proclaim to believe in Jesus Christ, is it scriptural to teach that she should hate her parents?”

This ‘detachment, indifference, or alienation’ from one’s own family is not to take place only to ‘reattach’ oneself to someone else (unless it’s Jesus) in the alienated party’s place. Jesus wants/desires/commands our devotion, our worship, our heart, our love above all else. We are not to put anyone or anything including our possessions, our church, church leaders, family members, including husband, wife, children, parents, best friends before Jesus. But detaching and alienating oneself only to move in and become attached to his/her ‘church’ isn’t the same as being Jesus’ disciple, so to speak. Too many people equate ‘joining a church’ to becoming a Christian. The two are not the same.

Millard said, “And oddly enough, when the father or mother or wife or children or brothers or sisters are Smith's Friends members, they are not "hated" the way that those who are not members are "hated."”

If SF really believes that this scripture means to ‘hate’ one’s own family, why not take ownership of it. If that’s what they truly believe, why not be proud of it and make it a well-known fact on their website that they believe and teach Jesus wants family members to hate each other, be separated, torn apart, and reattached to a ‘church’ group. Instead, on their website, they paint the picture that they are made up of large, happy families. Isn’t this is a façade to give the impression that they are family friendly, in favor of close familial relations, when in fact they have a history of breaking families apart?

And, did this teacher make his students’ parents aware that he believes turning teenagers/young emergent adults against their own biological families is a good thing? Does he tell his students’ parents that he believes in moving students into his home?

Sophie said...

Millard: “It's just amazing to me how an entire group can blithely condone cold-heartedness in the name of a God of love.”

I agree, Millard. Unfortunately, SF isn’t the only group who claim to be Christian behaving in ‘cold-hearted’ ways. There are many people who get caught up in an idea that a person is promoting in the name of ‘Christianity’ and completely neglect to examine closely what God’s Word says and the example that God set for us by sending Jesus who took the punishment that we deserve. This is why ‘who’ we’re listening to and ‘what’ they’re teaching is very important. Scripture taken out of context and misconstrued often results in bad behavior. Behavior that is hateful, fearful, too busy for others, self-centered, dishonest, disloyal, angry is behavior that is bad and doesn’t line up with scripture. Correct teaching usually results in more Christ-like behavior. No one is going to be perfect one hundred percent of the time, but it is the consistent, dominant behavior that usually reflects the condition of one’s heart.

Sometimes this (incorrect teaching) comes down from the top, but sometimes it can just come from a misinformed person within an organization and have nothing to do with the leadership or its teachings. If the behavior doesn’t line up with what Jesus would do or how He would treat someone, then we know it is incorrect. God is a God of creativity, justice, patience, mercy, grace, compassion, forgiveness, and tenderness, but most definitely love toward everyone.

Recently in the news, there is a group of people that are supposedly of the Baptist denomination who made a bad decision to carry oppositional signs around a dead soldier’s funeral because he was gay. Although the scriptures do speak on the subject of homosexuality, picketing someone while they are grieving is not a loving, Christ-like thing to do. The family of this young man had already enough heartache and sadness to endure in dealing with the loss of their family member who had just given his life for the freedom of other Americans. I don’t believe that Jesus would have picketed; I believe He would have shown love and compassion to this family like He did Zaccheaus and the Samaritan woman. But, who was this picketing group following and listening to? Had they gotten off the path following Christ and began to follow a person who led them in this bad behavior?

Why teach and practice hate, separation, division, lies, and selfishness when one has the power to instead teach and practice love, unity, truth, kindness, and compassion? We will know them by their fruits.

Harold said...

Russian, I would like pose a question to you. On the Brunstad website is a piece about Aksel J. Smith with the title “I and the Father are one”. In this article, is the following paragraph:

“He lived a life of extreme faithfulness to the gospel of victory over sin and was in such a continuous inner development that, near the end of his life, when he read from John 10:30 at the 1995 Easter Conference at Brunstad, there was no doubt that this verse had become his personal testimony—“I and the Father are one.” ”

http://www.brunstad.org/en/Portraits/Aksel-J-Smith-I-and-the-Father-Are-One.aspx

My question is this; when it says that the personal testimony of Mr. Smith had become “I and the Father are one”, what does this mean to you?

Harold said...

One of the subjects I have written about several times on this blog is about how the Christians of the first century were shunned by their Jewish relatives when they became believers in Christ. Jesus says in Luke 12:51 “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

I believe Jesus was describing the division caused by those who followed him and those who would refuse to believe. This would indeed cause division among families but it is the Jews, and others, that would shun those family members who believed in Christ. Jesus was not talking about causing division among believers. To illustrate this further Jesus said in Mark 3:25 “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

I bring this up again because I recently had the opportunity to visit with a young woman from Israel. She was raised in an orthodox Jewish family and had never seen, much less read the New Testament until several years ago. She met someone who introduced her to Jesus through the New Testament and she eventually became a believer.

She knows nothing of this blog or this girl or Smith’s Friends. She told me how upset her family was and how they cried and prayed for her. Her mother came to her house and took all of her Bibles and books and burned them…twice. She talked about how the orthodox Jews view Christians as worshiping a different god and they were convinced that she has been seized by the devil. They also refuse to talk to her about it.

I thought this was very interesting how she confirmed my understanding of Jesus words in Luke 12:51 and thought I would share this with everyone else on this blog.

Harold said...

Keith: I wanted to share something that you might find interesting. There have been several references on this blog to A-lag and the use of volunteer labor to operate for-profit businesses related to Brunstad Christian Church. These so far have not been backed up by any proof.

There is a company in the Netherlands by the name of DWN Service. You can find their web site at http://www.dwn-service.nl/.

If you translate this web site using google you will find this paragraph on their home page.

“DWN Service is a unique company with a specific objective. Our employees perform their work because without any compensation or consideration to be received as a volunteer. In this way money is collected for Christian and humanitarian projects, including youth, children's work and international charitable projects.”

On another page is this information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“Service is a part of DWN Service Foundation. This foundation is affiliated with Christian Church Netherlands (CGN). DWN Service is a fundraising organization that allows charities to support from CGN. These goals include:

Contributions to conference and churches around the world.
1. Contributions to Christian children and youth.
2. Contributions to international mission projects.
3. Other humanitarian and charitable projects.

If you want to read more about the Church and the content of these projects, please visit the international website of the religious community, www.cgn.nl.

Because DWN service only works with volunteers, the client pays no income tax and social contributions. About the services provided by DWN Service only charged VAT.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you go to www.cgn.nl and read their history it is all the same information about J.O. Smith and the Brunstad Christian Church.

This is interesting because here is a for profit company, with ties to Brunstad, that is open about the fact that they use volunteer labor to undercut legitimate businesses for the purpose of funding the church. They advertise that their clients do not have to pay income taxes or social contributions. They have challenged this arrangement in Netherlands courts so it seems that they have the legal basis to do this in the Netherlands.

I assume that these volunteer workers are mostly A-lag members who are doing their one-year service for the church.

Harold said...

There are two points I would like to make about this. First of all, from all the comments from former SF people it is apparent that this type of business model has been embraced by the Maclaey Solutions company and the Salem fellowship. My guess is that there are many more that either do, or are trying to build the same business model in their community.

The second point I would like to bring out is that this is not new. Jim Jones did much the same thing with the People’s Temple in San Francisco. His rise to fame and financial wealth came through the use of volunteers to gain political status.

“Of particular interest to politicians was the Temple's ability to produce 2,000 people for work or attendance in San Francisco with only six hours notice.” Lindsay, Robert. "How Rev. Jim Jones Gained His Power Over Followers." New York Times. 26 November 1978.

Here is a quote from an article on the Unification Church and the Rev Sun Myung Moon.

“Having had a fine time in the camp, you volunteer for a team, giving all your money for this great and important work done by the movement. You may be lucky to join a fishing crew working for the movement, because it deals a lot in fishing and fish processing - all of it unpaid and only for the benefit of the movement - completely unselfish devotion to the cause!”

Although the moonies believe that their volunteer time and money is going to a religious cause, the “cause” in this case is ultimately the Rev Moon himself.

Almost every cult out there exists and makes money by the use of volunteer labor. It seems that the Smith’s Friends / Brunstad Christian Church / The Christian Church / The Christian Church Netherlands / Macleay Christian Retreat / The Church in Ottawa / Owasso Christian Fellowship, whatever name you want to use, they have the same business plan.

Giving it to god said...

I'm glad you found that dwn smith's friends free market society buisiness.........the smith's friends are painting me as crazy....and one of them has been attacking me much in private facebook e-mails today and it's hard with my mental illness to not buy into all that she's saying or some of it anyways............but the fact is dwn does exist ----- my gut feeling and my experiences that were very bad with this cult were real! I just hope the fbi finally is doing something about this cult. I don't want anybody else to be sucked in this cult, I don't want anybody else to be emotionally, spiritually damaged as I was by the smith's friends. It's real hard to this day for me to trust people, finally I'm trusting people some. Most people are nice, most people aren't the smiths friends, not perfect outside the smith's friends I'm treated like a real person and that's something. This cult to this day is super hard on my mental health. I need prayer that I can survive all the attacks of which this cult is attacking me these days.

RssnSpy6 said...

Hi Harold,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you... for the last month or so the blog only wanted to show first 199 posts for me.

Thank you for the question re Aksel Smith and the article posted about him. I'll try to explain how I understand the statement, "I and the Father are one," from the article.

I believe that... Aksel Smith was a modern day (in his lifetime) apostle, as described in Ephesians 4. He lived a personal life before God, was obedient to what the spirit prompted, and knew Jesus has his Lord and savior, and personal friend. He was a co-worker in the field of shepherding souls in their walk with Jesus, just as Paul was to the entire Christian church. God had entrusted him, as a faithful servant, to do the works he did. In this way he had the same mind as the Father towards sin, life, and all those he worked with.

Since I didn't write the article, and it is an compilation, or excerpt, from a book by Kjell Arne Bratlie, I may be misinterpreting his intention. IIRC, this verse has already been discussed here re: how it relates to Jesus' relationship with God while He was on earth.

I hope that my words, what I believe, are clear. If not, ask again. Now I'd like to ask you a question, Harold...

Has SF, or the SF movement, always been a cult-like group from the first days of JO Smith's conversion and bible studies? Or has it grown into a cult-type organization? If it has grown into a cult-type organization, when did it change from being 'good' to bad?

Harold said...

Russian: I know what you mean about the blog. It sometimes loses the links to the different pages.

In response to your question about when SF became a cult, I can’t answer that. I don’t know enough about the behaviors of J.O. Smith and others. I wasn’t there. All I can comment on is what has been witnessed here in this group in this time, the experiences shared by others, and the writings that I have access to.

I will say that, for me, it became a cult when the people from this group went to the university, and surreptitiously, with forethought and malice, moved this girl into their home to separate her from her friends and family. This, followed by threats, lies, secrecy, and fear, is not a sign of a healthy spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. And she still can’t join her own family on a trip, not even on holidays to visit extended family. When a group, exerts that kind of undue influence over people, and aggressively comes between them, their friends, and families, something is terribly wrong.

About Aksel Smith, when he read John 10:30, did he really mean that he and the Father are one? I believe the only one who can truly say that is Jesus Christ. For anyone else to even suggest that, then they are considering themselves equal to Jesus and God.

If you believe in modern day apostles, and that Aksel Smith is one, then there must be the possibility of other modern day apostles as well. Are there any others? If so, can you name one?

RssnSpy6 said...

To Harold:
Fair enough.

Aksel Smith never said the he and the Father were one. The excerpt in question,-

"The defining element of his life was his seemingly endless love for everyone he met. He lived a life of extreme faithfulness to the gospel of victory over sin and was in such a continuous inner development that, near the end of his life, when he read from John 10:30 at the 1995 Easter Conference at Brunstad, there was no doubt that this verse had become his personal testimony—'I and the Father are one.'"

So either the author of the article, unknown, or the author of the reference material, Kjell Arne Bratlie, made the statement. The fruits of his life had been tasted, and were found to be good.You sit there and wonder if any blasphemy has occurred instead of rejoicing in the testimony that a human being had, "seemingly endless love for everyone he met," on account of the gospel.

If you are wondering if we 'angel' worship, and make men out to be more than what they were, we don't. God is supreme, Jesus his son was the first among many brethren, and those who truly follow Jesus will be his bride.

I believe in modern day apostles. I can only comment on the ones that I have witnessed, the experiences shared by others, and the writings I have read. I believe that Sigurd Bratlie was an apostle.

Harold said...

Russian: Do you rejoice in the testimony of Mother Teresa? At least I know of Mother Teresa and her life’s work. Who knows of Aksel Smith or Sigurd Bratlie beyond those who are in SF? All that I can find about them comes from a very tightly controlled source. Mark 4:21

Why would I rejoice in his testimony just because you say it? The Bible says to test the spirits. 1 John 4:1

You said “Jesus his son was the first among many brethren”. Who are the brethren you speak of?

Jesus made a distinction between disciples and apostles. 2 Cor 12:12 says “The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you…” What signs, wonders, and miracles did Aksel Smith and Sigurd Bratlie perform that the public (i.e. not just SF) can testify to?

john said...

Harold:
You wont get an answer to your questions because SF believes that what Jesus did openly was "nothing" and what he really did is known only to the "elect", the Bride, which is the SF. And this what he did he did in the "hidden", in "secret", so only those who are inside the SF know this "hidden" and the "secret".
This is a group where men are worshipped - leaders like Bratlie, JO Smith, Aksel Smith, Kare Smith, etc as "gods". So it is no surprise that Aksel Smith felt that he was equal to the Son of God and proclaimed it. Just as Bratlie openly proclaimed that he was an "apostle" and everyone in the group has to believe such things or else they are "peripheral". And "outsiders" really do not count in this "business" unless you are a good obedient "recruit" like this girl in Owasso.

Harold said...

God didn’t do anything in secret. Look at the Old Testament and the miracles and wonders that were done in the book of Exodus for example. I believe that God fully intended for these to be out there and open for the whole world to see and know that He is God.

In Joshua 2, Rahab talks to the Israelite spies that she was hiding:

“Before the spies lay down for the night, she went up on the roof and said to them, "I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.”

Rahab and all the people in Jericho, and most likely all of the people in the Middle East at that time, had heard of all the things God was doing with the nation of Israel.

When Christ was born in Bethlehem, Luke says that a “great company of the heavenly appeared with the angels praising God…” Matthew talks about the star seen by the Magi in the east. These events were announced publicly to many witnesses.

Jesus himself talked about this subject.

John 18:20,21
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

Luke 22:52,53
“Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns."

So according to the testimony of Jesus himself he did nothing in secret. Everything was taught in the open to all who would listen.

In 1 Thessalonians we learn about the events that happen when Jesus comes again.

1 Thessalonians 4:15,16
“According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”

When Jesus returns, it is clear that EVERYONE will know it. It will not be in secret, the whole world will know it.

Harold said...

Even the apostles did nothing in secret. In Acts 3 when Peter and John heal the crippled beggar he did this at the temple gate, the most public place. Then again when they were arrested by the Sadducees and the angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail, the angel told them “Go, stand in the temple courts…and tell the people the full message of this new life”.

The angel’s instructions were to go to the most public place and tell the FULL message to everyone. God wanted them to tell EVERYTHING they had witnessed. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They didn’t need to lie. They didn’t have any secrets to keep and there were plenty of other witnesses around who could have contradicted their story if it wasn’t true.

However Jesus illustrates the contrast between His work and the work of evil men.

John 3:20,21
“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

For these reasons, I believe that for some to claim Jesus did some mysterious work in secret; for movies like The Da Vinci Code to feed the idea that there is some secret mystery surrounding the events of Jesus, these are spiritual deceptions.

I ask those SF people out there to show, in scripture, where Jesus did anything in “secret” or in the “hidden”. Can you prove that you have not added to scripture? Rev 22:18,19

RssnSpy6 said...

Hi Harold:

I can't say I am familiar with the testimony of Mother Teresa, just her life's work (fighting poverty and aiding the unwanted). Her life's work was quite commendable, but as we've been reminded, works and deeds don't mean much without faith. I am completely unfamiliar with her personal faith, therefore do not 'rejoice in her testimony.'

I agree with you that you shouldn't rejoice in a Aksel Smith's testimony just because I say so. A human being that has sinned cannot be 'one' with God, like you mentioned, but Peter writes that we are to have to same mind as Jesus. Those that do this put themselves into agreement with all that God is. In a way this is 'oneness' with God, no?

First among many brethren...
Romans 8:29, all those that are conformed to the image of Jesus become Jesus' brothers.

Mark of an apostle...
First, do you believe in modern day apostles? Why or why not. If so, who?
I do not have firsthand knowledge of any "signs, wonders, or mighty works." I was too young and in another country. I've heard stories of 'miraculous' healings, but to you they are just that, stories.

God didn't do anything in secret...
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. If God did something in secret (only He would know about it) no one else would know, what a conundrum. If you really mean this, which I doubt you do, you're saying that you've seen into God's ways and seen that He has no secrets. Assuming that you mean He always reveals His ways, then I agree with you.

By the examples you posted, you'll have to agree that He makes Himself known to select people--certain groups or individuals at certain times... All for His own purpose. There is/are no mysterious/hidden work(s) other than what has been recorded in the Bible, among them:

Luke 10:21--In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Mark 4:11--And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,

Paul went on and on about the mystery of the gospel.
Romans 11:25
1 Cor 2:7
Eph 3, Eph 5.

Not everyone can receive the message Jesus brought to the earth. When you say, "the idea that there is some secret mystery surrounding the events of Jesus, these are spiritual deceptions" I agree with you. The events are the events. SF believes that the inner work that went on in Jesus (in His mind and 'flesh') was much greater than what went on outside (the healings, water to wine). The phrase, "in the hidden," refers to this work because no one can see what goes on inside another person's thoughts and intents (all of Heb 4).

To make it clear, the hidden work (inside His body) Jesus did: "but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." If you don't agree that this took work (a mighty work), why did jesus have to pray to the Father as written in Heb 5:7? (work doesn't = own strength)

I hope I've answered your question.

«Oldest ‹Older   1201 – 1400 of 1940   Newer› Newest»