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 1601 – 1800 of 1940 Newer› Newest»I have this feeling that I might know one of the person who write here regularly, I dont want to name is real name and all. But I would like to be able to talk to him if posible, I will give some description, about how he might remember me.
He use to be a policemen, like 13 years ago, he and 2 other men from that Smiths Friend church drove 10 hours away from the church he use to come see me , they stay a night or 2 at my dad, thats where I live at the time. Anyway he left that church about 5 years ago, I really like enjoy talking with him and since we both went to that same fellowship we know same people , it would be nice to have a chat with him. the Last I heard where he was, he move up north somewhere. Hopefully you do come on this blog
One thing I notice they stay away from people with special need, they go from church to church trying to find smart people to bring them to their church.
Their is this young girl that was always coming around , she had some type of depression, I remember very well everyone was laugthing about her when she was not around, today I seen that she is maried and will have a kid. I am sure she can laught at me and my ex now. But probably dont.
I notice that if we would be driving around some of them would laught at bums on the streets, I could never understand why they do this. But now I do understand, cause most people from that church like the young people they never had a ruff life and never been outside their church life, thats why probably 95 % of people in that church was born in the chuch.
They juge other church cause lots of them are a mess, and I know it to cause I did go to many other church, but one thing I understand tho, most other church in mess thay have people that was abuse mentaly and physicaly from parent or someone else, its kinda normal for anyone to have a hard life when you did not have a normal one.
And what I hate its when they protect their church, they talk agains other church and laught at people and all. But they dont see the bad stuff in their church the min you talk about something that is bas in their church , they always have good excuse.
In the beginning lots of people would want me to testifie in front cause thats what they do people go testify, anyway I never had a good feeling about that for myself, but I feld force to do it, but one of the last time I went there, someone came to me after I finish testify saying I should not put my hand in my pocket cause it look like a preacher lol , they hate preacher so for me to look like one in front was not acceptable.
I think a book should be written about stuff that is going on in that church cause I am sure lots of other people live the same thing.
I go to the brunstad.org site see what's the newest bs I disagree with : ) hahahahahah
my beef with their latest article ""‘Abundance of grace’ – for what?""
I quote from this article ya brunstad'll be pissed """"Paul writes in Rom.5:17, “Much more will those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ”. We cannot say that we reign in life when we become angry, offended or impatient, even if we have the forgiveness of sins. Paul continues in 6:14 “For sin will not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace”. When we get offended—even if we don’t want to—then it is clear that sin has dominion over us."""""
I know they think I'm in the wrong to of ever been upset in the 1st place, but I disagree with this cult.........if a cult is entirelly shutting you out and shunning you like they did/do me (though I am currently chatting online with 1 smith's friends cult member that is like actually like a normalish person - I say ish cause they are still a part of coo coo smith's friends land hahahahah) I think it's not a sin for me to of been upset! Like I disagree that I sinned! Further in my estmiation those of them that to this day refuse to reply to my e-mails and refuse to be my facebook friends sometimes I try a few times thinking maybe its a fluke thing...........your sinning, holding this massive grudge against me cause I got mad that all you coo coo smith's friends were shunning me so much!
My apostolic christian aunt, thank god for my aunt, wrote me a super good e-mail today.....talking about my frustrations with the smith's friends...........I thank god for my apostolic christian relatives, they stick by me even when I'm mad or a dork or whatever : ) That's what love is to me, love is you loving me even if I'm being obnoxious. Love forgives, love is patient (there's a bible verse about that)
I'm at a mainstream church where I'm feeling the love : ) my husband thinks the smith's friends just have underdeveloped brains - maybe???????????????
Jeremiah 31:3 "The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness." When we were sinners jesus loved us, loved us enough to die on the cross aren't we also to love all men always? (love the sinner not the sin but love the sinners all them!)
Colossians 3:12 "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." I'll word it better the the smith's friends cult "as God's chosen people, put up with sheri walz when she storms off on a internet wide tirade after you shunned her and shut her out for many many years inflicting a mental disorder upon me -- even if she is a #@%@#$% up your @#$%@# for all the rest of eterntity do good to your enemies love them
aka let her be your facebook friend, care, try to care look like you care about me, send fds flowers to me I don't know look like you care a penny! But course they are infested with demons, surely they are infested with the worst demons in the entire earth, like all the demons right now are in this cult I'm pretty sure. Very much satan pry meant for this cult to take me out, and he's pry after their souls to........pray for this most demon possessed cult on the earth pray for their souls! Love them in that way! Though they love us not, let us love them in that way in much prayer for the salvation of their demon possessed souls, and the removal of their fake demon holy spirit. And thank god we ain't at their demon possessed compounds - YIKES!
After being blocked from commenting on daniel strubhars facebook page today, and then deleted by the 1 smith's friend I was talking to after trying to post my frustrations over daniel strubhar not even letting me give my opinion I started a brunstad christian church recovery group facebook page.......I'm determined to recover from this cult if it kills me - there has to be light at the end of the tunnel where I can fully overcome their evil I don't know how much ridiculous amounts of good I'm going to have to do to them - granted I'm not battling against the people of this cult I'm definately in a war against the demons in them it's not a war against flesh and blood but principalities of darkness and wickedness and evil that is possesing this cult via a fake version of the holy spirit - fact is stranger then fiction........http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111642482231092&v=wall
Christians are called to love others as they love themselves (Matt. 22:39, Jn. 13:34-35, Romans 13:9). Christians are to clothe themselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience (Colossians 3:12) Calling people names, belittling, turning against loved ones, threatening, falsely accusing, mocking, bullying, deceiving, assaulting, keeping secrets, being divisive, and being selfish are NOT things Jesus did or would do.
So, no matter what one believes about Jesus theologically-whether one believes He is God in human form (Colossians 2:9) and died as a propitiation, sin offering, sacrifice, ransom of our sins (Hebrews 9:15, 9:23-28, 10:10-14, Ephesians 5:1-3, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:4-7) or whether He is ‘just a man’ and He is just someone for us to follow until we become perfect as we know it, the behaviors of various Smiths’ Friends members that have been witnessed world-wide are not indicative of behaviors that would be exhibited by Jesus. From what I’ve gathered, SF believes they should follow Jesus and become like Him doing what He does. Any way one looks at it, it doesn’t appear they are making a very concerted effort to really follow Jesus Christ. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Matt. 5:9.
Has anyone watched the video on the SF website "You don't need words"? They talk about their "gospel" but not once do they speak of or mention the name of Jesus.
Rssn: I have been thinking a lot about what you said:
“I had a very nice chat with her about her career aspirations a couple of months ago. It was really nice to chat with her (being someone who she barely knew from Adam). She seemed happy with where she was in life.”
Sophie made a good point. Why would she talk to you? If she barely knew you, why would she open up and share anything with you…a stranger? If this group is guilty of exerting undue influence, would you really expect her to give an honest answer that wasn’t directed by her prophet and leader? How would you know the difference?
There are many people involved in cults who look and act like any other normal person on the street. Take Tom Cruise for example. What makes you think you can talk to this girl and know if she is telling you what she really feels or if she is telling you only what she has been trained to say? How would YOU know the difference? And why should we trust you to provide an accurate account of her state of happiness? What gives you the authority to speak for her?
Gladtobegone: I watched the video and you are right. There is no mention of the ‘gospel of Jesus Christ’. There is mention of ‘the gospel of liberation from sin’, but they don’t relate that to Jesus Christ. Very interesting.
Do you also notice that the only sin they really talk about is anger. So let me ask the question, is anger really a sin?
To John:
You continue to present your beliefs as if they were facts. I am writing my comments of my own free will; I am not being “coached” like you claimed. Your latest list goes contrary to everything I understand about SF. Point number 7 regarding an understanding of the original scripture languages limits the number of possible 'true' Christians to those that can read Greek/Hebrew. Do you believe that only language scholars can understand the true meaning of the words in the Bible, and therefore the salvation that Jesus brought? Martin Luther freed the entire Germanic people from Roman Catholic bondage and spiritual repression when he translated the Bible... I think that your way tries to put souls into another kind of bondage. I also believe that access to any 'normal' Bible (not paraphrased in the vernacular) and a sincere longing for God's wisdom (+ His grace) will allow ANY person to understand (and DO) the message. You create for yourself the same culture of the scribes and Pharisees by requiring 'scholarly experts' to explain the scriptures. Thus you have people who possibly aren't even living Christian lives telling you what your gospel actually means instead of the Holy Spirit that 'leads and guides us into all truth' ... that is unacceptable in my book. I don't deny that an understanding of another language might help flesh out nuances of word meanings, but if you are correct, then the Greeks and Hebrews would be the 'best' Christians (most loving, most Christ-like, etc). That is foolish. God is not a respecter of persons or languages.
You said, “I won't say more because people like Rssn have no real understanding of what it means to be human because he is certain that he is "divine" and that his "leaders" are divine and must be unquestionably "obeyed", otherwise harm will come to him. The day he dares to question SF, he will be isolated and ostracized. So he will remain "faithful". Of course he is a good SF "soldier" and not a "soldier of Christ." Maybe he is being felicitated for his "defense of the SF faith" and that is his "gain" from the "gospel".”------ If you reside in India (which seems a reasonable assumption), and what you wrote was true, I would fear for the mental and spiritual health of the individuals in the SF churches there. However, I have several personal friends (all Indian born and raised), lets say 6 in 5 countries (including India), that would testify to the contrary. When those friends left India they sought out fellowship with Brunstad affiliated churches (not for fear of harm, but rather out of a need for like-minded fellowship). (You'll probably say they were ALL brainwashed—there is no 'defense' against that kind of irrational/ridiculous claim).
To Sophie:
---Isn’t it rather presumptuous to believe you know what preaching I hear?---
You say you are a Christian. I assume you believe what you hear and try to do what you hear. It doesn't seem to be such a stretch to connect what you say you do and believe to what you hear. They should be intimately related as, “faith comes by hearing...”.
To Harold:
I think Millard cleared up what his issues with SF were/are.
Regarding cars getting moved and paraphrasing:
---I will admit that you didn’t use the words “her parents moved her car” but it is clear to me that this was exactly what you wanted everyone to believe.----- I hate to belabor this point but I'd like an amicable resolution to 'paraphrasing-gate'. When I relayed the story about the young lady's car neither I nor the person I heard it from knew how the car got moved (you can dispute that the story is true, but then it's just he said/she said). I didn't think the parents moved the car, but that they may have been complicit (since it seemed logical that they would have a spare set of keys). It wasn't an accusatorial story, just one to show some depth in this unfortunately interesting circumstance—there are always 2 sides.
---This is one more illustration of the undue influence of this group. Why is this girl sharing her ‘career aspirations’ with you, ‘someone who she barely knew from Adam’ (according to you) just because you belong to the same ‘church’?----- Since when was asking a question about school or work or future 'undue influence'? I asked, I got a response. Talking is simple. You probably don't know, but do all those people you listed call her and ask themselves? Do they ask her out for coffee? Do they invite her over? I'll never know... but I do believe that there isn't a restraining order against the family... It comes down to communication and care for the others. Knowing what I know, which isn't much, I hope/wish her family has/would have contact. SF is a community unto itself, but there are many 'members' who are part of other clubs and organizations.
To Millard:
You commented on posts regarding Arabs and killing. I don't remember if I have shared on this topic yet... I saw this happen live. There is a large lack of information regarding this in these recent comments/questions. Here's the setting as I recall it: There was a special gathering (by special I mean not a Sunday type sermon/service) about the 'end times' and Israel. The scriptural basis of how the Jews and the nation of Israel play into the return of Christ were brought out for the knowledge and edification of those that didn't know (especially younger ones who hadn't studied or read about it). Many of the verses describing Edom (as the flesh) and Israel (as holy) were brought out. During that time Kaare Smith talked about how he tried to volunteer for the Israeli army during the 7-days war (1967, right?). They told him he could drive an ambulance, but not fire a weapon. Based on the fact that the Jews are still Gods chosen people, the fact that most of the Arab nations were invading them, and that Kaare Smith wanted to defend Israel, He made the comment. It wasn't a random, murderous/genocidal comment. When this quote was first posted a big stink was made about how he made it numerous times. After making the comment about the physical Arabs during the 7-days war he talked about Ishmael/Haggar and the Arabian ancestry making some analogies between Abraham and Ishmael vs Abraham and Isaac. (It's been a long time, I'm 'paraphrasing' here). Kaare allegorically connected Ishmael and the Arabs to the flesh/sin (because he was born out of the strength of 'man' instead of by God's promise) and Isaac and the Jews to Godliness—The comments were completely taken out of context. But instead of understanding that 'they' didn't have any insight other than the Yellow Journalism Headline, 'they' sounded off on how evil Kaare Smith was/is...
----Exactly. SF leaders and the more articulate members are master deflectors and dodgers. RssnSpy6 gives us some great examples of how subtly it can be done.----- High praise Millard. Please don't offer such 'felicitations' as they ... Come on, is that all you think I write? I haven't... what's the point, I'll engage on other things.
To Millard cont.
Re: “clever repurposing of words”
Every time you write about your departure and the reasons for your departure something new comes out. It isn't as if I 'know' what happened between you and SF in 1990-whatever because I wasn't there. I can only go on your narrative, your description of events, and take things with a grain of salt. I do have to gather, I do have to form your story into something that I understand. The more you write, the more I 'gather'.
Why must you say, “shame on you Russian”? I was not sly or slick or subtle in the least when I presented what you wrote to counter Harold's position. I ASKED you to intervene and set the record straight and you did. I don't feel the slightest bit ashamed, and neither should I for being out in the open with my comments. When you attempt to 'shame' someone you exalt yourself above them... The two go hand in hand.
Re: “Simple questions”
After your novel-length response I have to say I don't know as I ought to know. At the time neither did Harold. It wasn't confusing (or wrong) to say that your situation wasn't about 'questions' (unfortunately appending 'simple' in front to the ire of others)... You made that abundantly clear. I was right! It was about actions... again, I don't feel the least bit shamed because there was no guile in my words.
“Russian, I'd love to see you deny that this is a fair rendition of the kinds of conversations that happen over and over with people trying to figure SF out.”---- I can say that I have never had, or heard about, that that kind of experience (except from you). That kind of conversation may have happened to you—although I don't agree with how it makes SF 'members' out to be narrowly focused on themselves with no personal ideas or direction... Just put it all on the 'the brothers', follow like a lamb... I deny that. Each person is to have their own personal connection to the Head, to God. People that blindly follow 'leaders' are prone to being duped now and then by false shepherds.
--------PS. RssnSpy6 or Kaare Smith or anyone else is welcome to bring out what "sins" were mine that justified my excommunication and warranted the eventual breakup of my family that some in SF advocated and enabled, most supported, and everyone in SF stood by and watched happen without lifting a finger to try to prevent. I'd love to hear what was on the leaders minds when they decided to excommunicate me. It would be a first. --------- Millard, you and I have had our say to each other off-blog. We couldn't find common ground. But you wrote something that really goes against who you present yourself as... “warranted the eventual breakup of my family (divorce) that .... ... watched happen without lifting a finger to try to prevent.” How are you so principled in so many things, skilled in both word, knowledge, and scripture, yet you couldn't keep a covenant you made before God, a minister (I presume you married in a church), and a congregation, to remain married to your wife 'till death did you part' (barring sexual immorality as mentioned in the Bible)? You pass that off as if it was the fault of SF (who advocated nonetheless) when you had to (I also presume that you must willingly sign an official divorce document to become divorced) actively DO something to become divorced. Those two 'people' don't jive. Maybe you have a perfectly plausible explanation for why you are divorced... I don't know, but don't blame it on SF without implicating yourself as well.
To Harold:
Re: career aspirations
Lets create a scenario... You meet a friend of a friend for the first time. Instead of standing there awkwardly you ask a question to start conversation. “Hi, what do you do for work?” “Oh, I'm in school, working a graduate degree. Civil Engineering.” “Interesting, I have a cousin who does that... is the job market for that good where you live?” etc. etc. etc. What is so odd about a conversation?
I wrote that she 'seemed happy with where she was in life.' My interpretation of her attitude and words, nothing more. I thought you Okies (you're from OK right?) were all about bein' friendly-like, stranger or not? Were she under the influence of the 'prophet and leader' she might lie to me about things, but then she'd be going against the other SF 'rule' that's been floated here “it is ok to lie and cheat 'outsiders' because they aren't the “chosen”, but not those in SF.” Which rule applies here Harold?
-----And why should we trust you to provide an accurate account of her state of happiness? What gives you the authority to speak for her?-------- Sigh... on this blog we have 1st person (at best) renditions of something that none of us were an active part in (the initial situation). All we can do is write what we've seen, heard, and believe. You just have to take whatever is said with a 'grain of salt'. I believe close to 0% of what john writes because 'he' never qualifies statements (they are all 'facts'). I believe a very large portion of what you write because you are up front about the details, even if I categorize what you say as 'one-sided' (because of your influences). You probably think, as Millard mentioned, that everything I say is subtlety and full of guile. As to the second part, I have no authority to speak for her, neither do I presume to have it or want it. I am myself, unattached, un-coached, with just my life experiences.
To gladtobegone and Harold:
What exactly is your beef with the video? Is it that the entire gospel wasn't laid out point for point or that the exact words you thought should be said weren't scripted in? It's a short video about 3 young men volunteering their expertise in a foreign country. They would rather 'live the gospel' than preach it, 'be a light' rather than talk about it. Doesn't the rest of the website clearly and plainly say that Jesus Christ is the 'Man' (in other words)?
---Do you also notice that the only sin they really talk about is anger. So let me ask the question, is anger really a sin? ---- Some is some isn't, depends on the 'thoughts and intents of the heart'. Google 'is anger sin?' and you can quickly see what God's Word says about anger.
Russian wrote:
"High praise Millard. Please don't offer such 'felicitations' as they ... Come on, is that all you think I write? I haven't... what's the point, I'll engage on other things."
Well, yes, I guess that's what I think. You're a smart guy. You include plenty of rational, informative comments in your posts... in micro. Put them together to see where they lead as a whole and patterns appear. The gist of what you write follows solidly along the SF lines of thought I've come to know oh so well. Your arguments only serve to emphasize those patterns and the contradiction between what your comments imply in micro and what your thinking as a whole clearly shows.
I really don't have time for further merry-go-rounds with you like I experienced in our emails. I would just like to point out how you exemplified what I wrote about narcissistic thinkers being unable to follow simple cause-and-effect sequences and how they confuse simple priorities.
You wrote:
"How are you so principled in so many things, skilled in both word, knowledge, and scripture, yet you couldn't keep a covenant you made before God, a minister (I presume you married in a church), and a congregation, to remain married to your wife 'till death did you part' (barring sexual immorality as mentioned in the Bible)? You pass that off as if it was the fault of SF (who advocated nonetheless) when you had to (I also presume that you must willingly sign an official divorce document to become divorced) actively DO something to become divorced. Those two 'people' don't jive. Maybe you have a perfectly plausible explanation for why you are divorced... I don't know, but don't blame it on SF without implicating yourself as well."
Haha! You still don't know even after I clearly explained it to you. OK. Once more and for the benefit of others on the blog...
My ex-wife filed for divorce with the encouragement of SF leaders, as you well know. Apparently Jesus' teaching about not divorcing your partner except for infidelity has exceptions. So you seem to think that her taking this action was causally insignificant. Instead, you seem to think that the divorce was more importantly the result of my signing the papers that she filed. So it was me who didn't keep the marriage covenant, evidence that I don't "jive". (I just love the way you use euphemisms like "jive" to imply things like dishonesty or hypocrisy instead of being clear about it. Just another manipulative gimmick.)
Hmmm... I wonder which action was a more important determining factor, her filing or my signing? Your assumption that not signing the papers was an option shows your naiveté about divorces and how they work. I pointed out in our emails how you bent over backwards to find a way to deflect any responsibility for the situation away from her and from SF leaders. Thank you for giving us a small example of it on the blog.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I also wrote to you personally, which you chose to ignore in your post, that over the last year of our marriage I exhausted every avenue I could think of in order to save our marriage, and all of those efforts were rejected by my ex. I even asked her not to divorce me but to file for legal separation, which she refused to do (and has since admitted to me that she regrets.) Now THAT might be a new detail for you, but by no means a critical one.
What isn't new to you is that her and the SF leader's game plan was clear from the first time she threatened to divorce me and "take away the children" a full year before we finally split up: threaten to eliminate access to my own children in order to coerce me into "submission to the brothers." I wrote to you clearly about that. Pretending that you are unaware of it is significant and dishonest. (I don't like euphemisms.) She and SF leaders thought that it was a no-brainer: she would get custody of the boys if she divorced me.
She and they were wrong. The courts settled the question, granting me primary custody of our six young boys. Do you have any clue how unusual this was given the huge bias towards granting custody to the mother? That is how clear the facts of the case were. Just a few weeks later I got a phone call, not from my ex but from the local SF leader #2. He asked if I would "consider reconciling" with my ex-wife. Oops. Our attempt to separate your from your children didn't work. Our bad. We didn't mean to lose. Please reconcile and make it better.
My refusal to bow to coercion was the "lack of submission" that you at one point claimed was the primary reason that I ended up being outside "the body of Christ." That implies that submitting to such things is required to be a part of Christ's body, something you affirmed several times in different euphemistic ways in your emails. So you actually do agree that there is no way for someone to seriously disagree with SF leaders without being wrong. Sure, anyone can disagree right up to the point that The Brothers tell him to submit and poison people's minds against him if he refuses. Come on, Russian, admit it. You don't really disagree, you just don't like it when someone refuses to euphemize.
It just cracks me up that you can post the stuff that you do and keep a straight face about it. At least your posts make it sound like you have a straight face... Do you? Maybe you're writing all those things with a big grin on. Regardless, you give folks on this blog a taste of how far SF members are eager and willing to go to flip things upside down and backwards in order make their group out to be in the right. You're better at it than most. Keep it coming! ;)
PS. It took you a REALLY LONG paragraph to get Kaare Smith out of looking like a racist with genocidal tendencies. I hope you're right for his sake.
PSS. I don't think that the Arabs are worried.
On another note, I'm still getting that annoying "URI too long" message. At least the posts are getting through. Anyone know what might be going on? I'm stumped.
Rssn: “It wasn't an accusatorial story…” - I believe it was and I believe you intended it that way…and yes, much of what you say is suspect (because of your influences). I’m not sure if this is just your persona or because you are so accustomed to the SF deceit and dodging tactics that you don’t know how to relate any other way.
“Since when was asking a question about school or work or future 'undue influence'?” “What is so odd about a conversation?” --- Asking the question is not the example. The fact that you can ask the question but her family and friends don’t have the opportunity to ask is evidence of the negative influence that Brunstad Christian Church has over her. You asked “do they ask her out for coffee?”, etc. In the beginning they all asked her. They continue to ask. But let’s turn the question around…does she ever ask her friends and family? I agree, it’s all about communication, but that is a two way street. Where does she spend holidays and vacations? Granted, not every college student spends ALL of their vacations at home but they don’t normally move into the home of their high school teacher, turned ‘prophet and leader’, mail their cell phone home, and tell their parents that they are afraid of being harmed if they come home. That is where the ‘undue influence’ comes in. The change in her behavior is a direct result of HIS influence and as Heart2Heart wrote “They have not made her ‘better’.
What exactly is your beef with the video? --- There is a lot of talk about this “gospel of liberation from sin” with phrases like:
“free from myself”
“become a happy person”
“experienced change”
“truly made me happy”
There is nothing wrong with what was said, but I have to question what isn’t said. There is no relation of this “change” or this “gospel” to the Bible or to Jesus Christ. They talk a lot about their testimony but that testimony doesn’t include Jesus Christ. I just think this underscores what SF really believes and teaches (or doesn’t teach) about Jesus Christ. And if SF don’t really accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior then why call yourselves Christians at all?
I know you’re going to come back and refute what I said you believe about Jesus Christ but if you and your gospel REALLY were about following Jesus Christ then this girl wouldn’t have done what she did and this SF leader wouldn’t have caused so much pain and heartache to other families. Those two things just don’t go together.
Harold, you hit the nail on the head. I'm getting convinced that one-way communication is the hallmark of abusive relationships however and wherever they might happen. Makes me think twice about the days when children were to "be seen but not heard" along with the mindset behind that sentiment, too.
Rssn (Oct5): “Point number 7 regarding an understanding of the original scripture languages limits the number of possible 'true' Christians to those that can read Greek/Hebrew. Do you believe that only language scholars can understand the true meaning of the words in the Bible, and therefore the salvation that Jesus brought? Martin Luther freed the entire Germanic people from Roman Catholic bondage and spiritual repression when he translated the Bible... I think that your way tries to put souls into another kind of bondage. I also believe that access to any 'normal' Bible (not paraphrased in the vernacular) and a sincere longing for God's wisdom (+ His grace) will allow ANY person to understand (and DO) the message. You create for yourself the same culture of the scribes and Pharisees by requiring 'scholarly experts' to explain the scriptures.”
I disagree with the idea that by an individual having an accurate and correct knowledge and ‘understanding of the original scripture languages ’ (Greek/Hebrew) the number of possible ‘true’ Christians’ becomes limited to only those who are ‘language scholars’. Rather than putting individuals into bondage, I believe the accurate and correct knowledge of words actually does the same thing that Martin Luther did; it FREES readers to correctly understand and interpret the meanings of scripture WITHOUT requiring any ‘scholarly expert’ to explain it to him/her. By knowing the correct meanings, one becomes independently capable of reading and understanding the scriptures on his/her own without being in bondage to a particular someone or some particular group telling him/her what they think it means. As Keith mentioned this back on Feb. 5, 2008, “As long as people don’t know what the Bible says…you can teach them anything.”
I believe most everyone’s heard the saying, “Give a man a fish, feed him for today; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”
Building literacy skills allows an individual to gain greater knowledge and information (in any subject matter), which in turn brings freedom when studying and learning of that subject. Knowledge allows one to not depend on another to show them, teach them, and guide them every time he/she wants to do something. He/she will be fully capable of learning without depending on someone else which is what puts people into bondage to others.
“Thus you have people who possibly aren't even living Christian lives telling you what your gospel actually means instead of the Holy Spirit that 'leads and guides us into all truth' ... that is unacceptable in my book.”
Is this any different than what is happening in SF groups? From the behaviors that have been observed (lying, threatening, making false accusations, isolation, intimidation, instilling fear of loved ones, manipulating, cursing, separating loved ones, arrogance), it doesn’t appear that they are really ‘living Christian lives’ and yet these SF leaders are ‘telling (you) what the gospel means’. By not fully understanding word meanings and contexts and proof-texting rather than taking scripture as a whole, SF misinterprets passages such as Luke 14:26 and use it to separate loved ones. Interestingly enough, they don’t hate their own family members (if the family members are part of SF). Perhaps this is one reason this group has been thought of and questioned as being ‘a cult’. It is a well-known fact that cults separate loved ones. The behaviors that have been witnessed are by-products of misinterpretation and incorrect teachings of scripture. The whole overall message of the Bible is how much God loves people, how much He wants a relationship with us, and what He did in order for that to happen. The Bible has much to say about love and it is clear that He also wants us to love each other; which is demonstrated by the way we treat others and the type of relationships we have with others.
1 John 4:19, “We love because He first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command. Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
John 13:34, “A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Colossians 3:12, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”
1 Peter 4:8, “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”
1 John 2:9, “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.”
1 John 3:11, “This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.”
1 John 4:7-12, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed His love among us; He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.”
Ephesians 4:29, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Rssn: “I don't deny that an understanding of another language might help flesh out nuances of word meanings, but if you are correct, then the Greeks and Hebrews would be the 'best' Christians (most loving, most Christ-like, etc). That is foolish. God is not a respecter of persons or languages.”
I agree. “That is foolish. God is not a respecter of persons or languages”. He loves all of us, every sinner (not the sin, but the sinner), just the same.
But I disagree with the idea that just because one ‘understands’ the correct meanings of words, means that Greeks and Hebrews would be the ‘best’ Christians. Just ‘understanding’ what money is doesn’t make one rich. Just ‘understanding’ how to read music doesn’t make one the ‘best’ musician. Knowing the correct word meanings is important in order to help one interpret accurately and correctly. Without accurate interpretation, we can’t make God-glorifying decisions when choosing whether or not to obey Jesus. The only way that Greeks and Hebrews would be the ‘best’ Christians is if after they correctly interpreted scripture, they chose to obey it and if they have a sincere heart change. Having a heart change, loving (and obeying) Jesus more than one loves him/herself and loving others as we love ourselves is what makes the ‘best’ Christians.
When we truly love Jesus and others, it will be able to be observed by the way we treat them. Breaking families apart by lying, threatening, cursing, making false accusations, twisting the truth, using dodging/evasive tactics, coercion, and manipulating are not behaviors that are demonstrative of love.
Matthew 22:37, “Jesus replied, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
“When those friends left India they sought out fellowship with Brunstad affiliated churches (not for fear of harm, but rather out of a need for like-minded fellowship). (You'll probably say they were ALL brainwashed—there is no 'defense' against that kind of irrational/ridiculous claim).”
Why would the idea of all of them being brainwashed seem ‘irrational/ridiculous’? What about The Manson family, Jonestown, or Branch Davidians? They were ALL brainwashed. That may have seemed ‘ridiculous’ too, but it really happened.
Harold asked, “Do you also notice that the only sin they really talk about is anger. So let me ask the question, is anger really a sin?”
Russian’s reply: “Some is some isn't, depends on the 'thoughts and intents of the heart'. Google 'is anger sin?' and you can quickly see what God's Word says about anger.”
Ephesians 4:26 says, “In your anger do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,”
If anger is a sin, then God too would be a sinner, because the Bible has quite a few passages that mention God’s anger. This verse makes it clear that anger is just one of many emotions that God designed us with, rather than a sin. Is the emotion of righteous anger something one would want to overcome or have victory over? Righteous anger is an emotion that is felt when we witness someone harming or hurting another. As Christians, we should love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. From what I know about God, I believe He hates it when He sees innocent people being harmed, hurt, mistreated, and/or abused.
If the emotion of anger leads one to hurt/harm or do something evil to another person (whom we’ve been called to love and have unity in Christ with), wouldn’t that be a sin because it goes against what Jesus told us to do-love others? Again, God instructs His followers to love others, not harm/hurt others. Lying, threatening, cursing, falsely accusing, separating loved ones, attacking, coercing, manipulating, using fear and guilt are all sins that hurt/harm people.
Harold, I agree with your statement, “I just think this underscores what SF really believes and teaches (or doesn’t teach) about Jesus Christ. And if SF don’t really accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior then why call yourselves Christians at all?”
When we reduce Jesus to ‘just a human being’ and not God incarnate, why would we think He is worthy of our worship? If He is not worthy of our worship, then why use the name ‘Christian’?
Hebrews 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”
Colossians 2:9, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”
Millard, Thanks again for sharing. Your story is a very sad one, not only for you, but also for your children and your ex-wife. But the things you’ve described are very typical of an abusive ‘church’. It has become obvious that you’re one of many victims that SF ‘church’ has harmed/hurt over a period of many years. It is not an isolated incident which is indicative that these behaviors are learned by the teachings of Smiths’ Friends leaders.
Sophie, I did a little double-take when I read your reference to me as a victim. I kind of looked over my shoulder to see who you were referring to.
I never felt victimized. Wronged, betrayed, etc., yes. Things happened that were damaging and well beyond my control, sure. Once I got over my initial disorientation and amazement, I knew all along that SF was in the wrong. The party that is in the wrong does not have the power. Since my break with the group, my contacts with SF members have only confirmed their weakness and paranoia over and over again.
I think that those of my boys who have a recollection of things that happened back then would agree that they never felt like victims, either. Certainly, none of them feel that way now.
I completely understand your reference and am not objecting. It's just that "victim" to me implies a sense of powerlessness or being overcome that I didn't experience. I appreciate your sentiments, though. I guess it's good that I don't relate so much to the tragedy of it anymore. I did relate to that for a long time, but too much good has come out of the whole thing to do much lamenting at this point. :)
sophie, all the bible verses you mentioned about "loving one another" the smith's friends interpret "loving one another" when it is mentioned in the bible anywhere as that they are meant to love each other, only those on the inside. They really do view themselves as fully heeding god's work by "loving one another" I mean each other on the inside. They clean don't view hating people on the outside as a sin, or you know like they do me not replying to none my e-mails hardly TO THIS DAY - YIKES! As a sin or bad or in anyway not heeding god's word, long as they love each other on the inside they view themselves as fully heeding god's word. (they don't give any credence to the love your enemies do good to them bible verse I find -------- cause they count me their enemy they treat me as a criminal and clean escort me around the property usually when I am there.......but they don't show love towards me or if they do I don't notice it in all the ice glares my way - YIKES, they haven't done good to me either though I don't let them have my adress, I don't want my family harmed, if they kill me while on the church grounds fine, but I'd rather my family not be harmed)
And I've mostly decided their holy spirit must be the real holy spirit, cause I'm still plagued by it, and I ain't even heard a smith's friends meeting for years, I don't read their literature at all haven't for years..........I think instead there is this demonic spirit of which you all have spoken of controlling this cult.......that I have spoken to once w/another smith's friend member, this "spirit" that the smith's friend confirmed makes everyone that visit their church at peace. And I noticed this spirit...........always I can fully attest, I'd go to this cult and a peace would rest over me while at this cult..........and it did stand out to me as a odd thing.
Thank god these days I get my peace from jesus and no smith's friends "spirits"!
recently I e-mail claude hunter like 2-3 times, and Larry Roth like 2-3 times (think that's his name? been away from this cult so long so isolated having trouble w/their names by now I'm afraid) they didn't reply to me none.......so obviously it is plenty deemed holy for them not to reply....also e-mail recently daniel strubhar he'll reply to me once in awhile not often, arnold fourie will also reply once in awhile to me. Somehow in their minds this treatment of me is really really HOLY! To me it's just man kept the pain going, that I ain't been able to have much opportunity to find some reason to forgive this people to love this people? It's really hard to forgive someone that has raped you while they are still raping you! (they didn't rape me, though about feels like it)
I'm glad for the word of god, cause that is how I know I'll be ok, the good it comes from god, if this cult was good good things would've happened to me at that cult, I would've had a good memory or two! James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Not that the smith's friends are demons or bad people per say - they are real people god wants to save - that we should love and pray for for sure! But the evil happened to me at that cult...........cause it's a cult ran by demonic forces..........the good comes from god! NO shadow of turning from god!!!!!!!!
God wants the good blessed fat land for all of us, not to be crippled and trapped in dark demonic cults!!!!!!!!!!!!
the sisters of the smith's friends cult shut me out more then the brothers that's why I only try to talk to some the brothers, but to little or no success they really hate me a slew! (one meeting was sitting by this sister a bit older then me and her kid went off to childrens church so I though well that works just stick my bible wear her child was sitting - the kids didn't come back to the meeting hall til the end of church! so this sister angrily throws my bible!!! or slams it, like violently angrily she catapults this bible - I'm like dang what a "insert appropriate word here : )" so when all the youth were called to go up and sing I didn't want to sit with the sister's after being treated like that! I tried to sit by the brothers who were being so much nicer to me back then they'd many them said hi to me many the young young brothers were just plentily nice to me I found them to be rather agreeable! (the sisters uhhhhhhhh YIKES!) the brother's moved to the other side of the grouping of young people's forcing me to stand by a sister, who I sorta scooted near and the 2 senior citizen elder sisters were right in front of me and not happy to see that I wasn't wishing to stand by a sister at all not knowing the horror of horror I had just went through via one not nice sister! I didn't even do anything to her, I didn't even know this sister, she just throws my bible!!!!!!!!!! So meanly to, such a meaness there.
So anyways, I never had much to do with the sisters of this cult....though I did try and e-mail anna and yelena galante much to no avail! Or very little avial, they'd often send me very tiny replies if they did reply. It was the brothers that waved hi to me, and came up and spoke to me after church - not the sisters.
Millard, perhaps ‘victim’ wasn’t the most appropriate word to use in reference to you. When I used the term ‘victim’ to describe you, I was thinking of someone who has been ‘cheated, hurt, harmed, betrayed, wronged, and/or damaged.’
One definition for victim is: a person cheated, fooled, or damaged whether by someone else or by some impersonal force (ex: a victim by the economic system).
Victimize: to make a victim of especially by deception: cheat.”
I agree that in some respects, you weren’t a victim, because you weren’t fooled or deceived. From what you’ve shared, it sounds as if you were aware of the manipulative, scheming tactics and agenda of the SF leaders so you weren’t able to be deceived or fooled. But, I do believe you were cheated, damaged, harmed, wronged, betrayed, and hurt when your marriage was broken and your sons were separated from their own mother because you didn’t submit to the leaders of Smith’s Friends. It’s good that you and your sons don’t think of yourselves as victims. I think your wife is a victim and in turn damaged/harmed your whole family.
Anyone who has been deceived, tricked, fooled by a ‘church’ that purposely isolates, emphatically teaches, and misinterprets verses such as Luke 14:26 in order to use them to manipulate its members to literally HATE his/her own family (if it isn’t part of the SF) and turn against them is a victim. This type of misinterpretation hurts, damages, and wrongs individuals and cheats them from a relationship with their own families and their own friends. I also believe that those who have grown up in reclusive/isolationist groups such as this and have been taught that they are more Christ-like, godly, serious, THE chosen bride of Christ have also been deceived and are victims. There is nothing Christ-like about hating, turning your back on, not interacting with others. Jesus interacted with everyone, even sinners. He loved them, not the sin, but the sinner. When we believe otherwise, we too, have been deceived.
Perhaps deception is one of many reasons some SF members tend to seem paranoid. They have been deceived into believing they should only trust those inside of their ‘church’.
Romans 5:8-9, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
Millard: I am glad that you don’t feel like a victim and that you have gotten past the trauma of your ordeal with Smith’s Friends. I would like to point out that
1) I think you were a victim. By your own definition of a victim “a sense of powerlessness or being overcome”, you were powerless to keep your marriage together. This was out of your control and manipulated by the Smith’s Friends church.
2) The ordeal isn’t over. You said yourself that you would like to reconnect with your ex-wife and Smith’s Friends is standing in your way. You can choose how you deal with it but you can’t control what they are telling your wife, can you?
It is good that you have the clarity to understand how good things can come from evil intentions. Just as Joseph was a victim of his brothers. They sold him as a slave. This was beyond his control. However God used this event in an amazing way to His Glory. God has a long history of taking things that were meant for evil and turning them into something to good. He has done that before and continues to work today as well.
We are most likely all victims of something or someone at some point in our lives. However, being a victim doesn’t mean we have to lie down and let others walk all over us. We have a choice. We can choose to let the Smith’s Friends get away with their lies and deceptions or we can do something about it. Prayer is important as John pointed out, but I believe God works through people and He can’t use us if we don’t DO something. I choose to do something and pray that God uses me to do His will.
Giving it to god: You said “And I've mostly decided their holy spirit must be the real holy spirit, cause I'm still plagued by it…” and then “I think instead there is this demonic spirit of which you all have spoken of controlling this cult…”
First of all I don’t believe that the deceptions and lies that permeate from the Smith’s Friends is a product of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the essence of God. Phil 2:6 “Who, being in very nature God…” Col 2:9 “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…” Jesus is “begotten” not created and Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of Truth” Jn 14:17. Just like the evil spirits have no power over Jesus Christ, evil spirits have no power over the Holy Spirit. The idea that evil spirits have control over a group with the Holy Spirit just isn’t rational.
You may feel emotional experiences, and a sense of peace in the Smith’s Friends church, but these are emotional feelings and we shouldn’t trust our emotions. Examine their behavior and ask yourself, can evil and good exist together? Can the Holy Spirit and evil spirits work together?
Haha, Sophie and Harold, I didn't anticipate much discussion on this, but it's interesting.
We really don't have any disagreement about the definition of "victim." I think it's more a difference of perspective and emphasis.
Harold: "By your own definition of a victim 'a sense of powerlessness or being overcome', you were powerless to keep your marriage together. This was out of your control and manipulated by the Smith’s Friends church."
Yes, but the same could be said for rain on a long-planned picnic day. We were powerless to stop the rain from ruining our plans for a lovely outdoor picnic. It was out of our control and manipulated by God. Or, let's say that we are all into "spiritual warfare" and were convinced that the picnic was God's will, e.g., because we were going to make major progress for the truth with the person we were picnicing with, we might think that the rain was manipulated by the devil. Either way, I doubt that we would describe ourselves as victims of the rain or of God or of the devil. There are hundreds, thousands of things that might make one person feel "a sense of powerlessness or being overcome" that make another person feel a sense of power and the conviction that this is a challenge that they will overcome.
Harold: "The ordeal isn't over." That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that what happened was perfect, and that it was just one part of everything else that has happened in my family's life that, more and more, we're seeing the good of. What if we see in retrospect years down the road that our divorce was the only way that my ex-wife could ever hope of getting free from SF? Wouldn't I be glad that it happened? And what if someday she does get free? I'd be hard-pressed to characterize what happened in the early 1990s or since as victimization.
Again, we don't differ about anything so concrete as dictionary definitions.
Victims are victimized by someone or something that somehow overpowered or abused them. If someone slaps me on the cheek, am I a victim? If he slaps me twice, am I then a victim? If he does it and gets away scot-free, am I then a victim? At what point does someone's abuse constitute victimization, and how severe does it need to be? On the other hand, if he slaps me once and I can never forget it, I'd agree that I allowed myself to become a victim. How would it be different if he'd slapped me a hundred times? We don't call holocaust survivors "victims" but "survivors" precisely because we don't want to focus on the abuse that they endured but on their strength and resilience which enabled them to endure it. It's a choice of perspective.
tbc...
(cont'd)
If I let abusive experiences become points around which my psyche becomes organized, I have indeed been victimized. To begin with, that's the nature of abuse: your psyche is organized around it. Stockholm syndrome, PTSD, decades of therapy all attest to the power of abuse to victimize. I don't deny that. But neither does that mean that the "victim" has no choice in the matter and is powerless to change things. If the power of the abuser is such that I have to permanently accommodate the abuser as a force to be reckoned with, then I am to that degree a victim, because to that degree my abuser still figures prominently in my psyche. Maybe we need to distinguish between powerlessness to control an abusive situation and powerlessness to recover from it. I think that the latter type of powerlessness creates victims. Powerlessness to control an abusive situation can create either victims or overcomers, (a term I prefer to survivors,) depending on what the "victims" do about it afterwards. Joseph didn't just survive. His abusers ended up bowing down to him.
Maybe it comes down to a choice between what we let be the defining factor of our experiences, especially abusive ones: the abuse or the truth and strength that enabled us to overcome it. Allowing abuse to define anything at all is to allow it in some respects to win. Who is healthier and stronger: someone who has finally stopped obsessing about his abusive, alcoholic father, or someone who is so happy with his life now that he wouldn't change the way his father was, because his experience with his father was largely responsible for his happiness now? I guess that there are people who might think that the second guy is off his rocker. I think that his attitude would be much closer to Joseph's. (PS. That was hypothetical, not referring to my dad.) And I guess that, if he really isn't happy about his life now, his father would be a big target for blame.
This is all in line with other comments I've made on the blog in the past. Although SF is abusive, it doesn't have nearly the power that people's comments here seem to invest it with. When I made those comments, some people misunderstood me to be defending SF. No, I just don't think that it amounts to such a big deal, either good or bad. It's a pretty self-absorbed, puny group as things go. As much as SF members and leaders would love to think that they amount to much more, they don't. It's megalomania. It's narcissistic. I'd rather not feed it, for their own good. I'd definitely rather not hype it.
tbc...
(cont'd)
I think that the more crucial problem is the relatively dismal level of SF members' sense of individual empowerment. "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Matt. 22:29 That is the fuel that fires the SF machinery and the glue that makes it all hang together. We could decry SF abuses from here to Timbuktu (thanks for that one, Mom,) and you know what would happen? SF members would DEFEND THEIR GROUP in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary. I've watched it happen. Why? Because they are NOTHING without their group. They have no power otherwise. They have no power as individuals. They'll be damned if you're going to take their group away from them. It's a sad comment on their spiritual state. I think that lack of individual empowerment is a huge problem for Christians in general, for people in general. If SF is a monster, it's only because we're individually so weak in the power of God that we let a relatively puny organization stand there like Goliath, taunting the armies of God.
I don't think that the answer is to point out how big and mean Goliath is, wherever he is. As Goliaths go, I'd say that the Catholic Church is by far the worse abuser of the two. Why waste time on puny SF? Who do we think is going to change anything about SF and its abuses anyway, the government? Crying "foul" assumes an umpire. You and I are just guys and gals. What can we do? Martin Luther was just one guy. Jesus was just one guy. I think that the answer is to start getting empowered ourselves.
No power = we're just all talk.
I've been doing lot of meditating lately, I don't know if that counts as me empowering myself? http://meditation.org.au/class1.asp instead of letting all the evil all around me dictate my happiness or lack thereof........to via meditation focus on the good, the heaven that lives within me (some bible verse about that) nother verse similiar says where can you go to escape god can you escape in in hell - no. The evil it is everywhere on this earth.........when god takes me to green pastures and still waters Psalm 23:2 "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters." the bad bad bad boogie uh boogies boogies they still all around us......when I take my focus off god I find then the boogie boogies bother me this my theory anyways. The still waters the green pastures aren't a myth - but you know caos still going to be clean around us.
I've went to ubber christian buddist monk land hahahahahah and this has helped! So like I don't empower me, god does yep pretty sure it's god, and he definately does empower me. (though I remember in the smith's friends days how much I wanted to be a "sister" to have that saintly title of saintliness upon me, I used to put a lot of value upon that)
Just having a roof over my head, a happy healthy family, my meditation time with god everyday, chickens, some peace, some zen, that's all I need : ) -------- the storm still swirls around me, long as I stay with god in the green pastures I'll be good to go : ) though geez it wasn't fun the abuse I endured at the hands of the smith's friends, but there is that "What's next" it wasn't my destiny to be trapped in that cycle of abuse. ------- the green pastures are real yo! just sayin they is real! I recommend fully some medation at the above website christian buddhist style. the storm going to keep going around us all, gotta hone in on god on the green pastures
Milliard, I understand your perspective and I don’t disagree with you. You are right; we have a difference in perspective and emphasis. That’s OK. That’s what makes healthy discussions.
Your emphasis is on the recovery side of things. Where you can choose to remain a victim or choose to overcome those circumstances and not let an abuser continue to control you. You WERE a victim, but choose not to remain a victim. I get that. But you need information to make that decision.
Some people don’t know that they are victims. All those 900 people who drank the Kool-Aid did not see themselves as victims of Jim Jones because they could not see it from their perspective. We would look at them as victims but they would not have described themselves that way. One difference is that Jim Jones controlled the information that they had access to.
In my opinion SF operates in the same way. They control their members through guilt and lack of information. It is information that empowers people. Why are Bibles banned in some countries? Why did the Nazis burn all those books in 1933 if not to control the information people had access to?
It seems to me that the SF people FEEL empowered because they have the writings of J.O. Smith and other SF leaders which they keep hidden and restricted from the outside. This makes them feel superior to others because they believe they have special knowledge. They can always claim that others are ignorant and therefore inferior. When someone like you comes along and challenges their information they get defensive and have to protect “the man behind the curtain”.
I think of this like the bully on the playground who everyone is afraid of. He has control as long as everyone is afraid to stand up to him. If everyone stands up to him and he realizes that he can’t control them anymore he takes his ball and goes home. He can’t defend his behavior so he leaves and calls everyone else mean and hateful.
The Smith’s Friends can’t defend the behavior of this SF family and so they tend to try and redirect the discussion into theology and doctrine and anything else. And when that runs its course they go back into hiding and isolation calling us and the rest of the world harlots and evil.
Why waste time on puny SF? Because this puny little “church” has perpetrated abuse on several families in this community. And as a high school teacher, this SF leader still has access to our young people at a very vulnerable age.
I understand your comments about the Catholic church, but members, or leaders, in this local Catholic church have never perpetrated any abuse on people like moving young people into their homes and turning them against their own families through a thought reform process. This kind of abuse happens in many churches. It’s not unique to Smith’s Friends. But don’t you think it is our job to expose them for what they are? If information is key to knowledge and empowerment shouldn’t we educate as many people as we can, no matter how puny the group is, so that others don’t fall into the same trap? In addition to this, isn’t it Biblical to expose false prophets?
Harold, great post! You hit some excellent points spot on. But first... ;)
I've wondered since we started our little exchange why this thing about "victims" is so important to me. Sometimes I surprise myself with my own reactions to things. Sometimes I realize that I was overreacting. Sometimes I find out, after mulling it over, that I had a grasp on something important, but at a level that I couldn't immediately access, much less verbalize. I think this is an example of the latter.
What sense I've been able to make of it is this: I think that I'm talking about a perspective that assumes something very different than what you seem to assume, from what I read from your posts. I'll see if I can describe it. If not, it will have to stew some more...
I'm definitely not claiming that I disagree with what you wrote about victims/abusers, but that it represents a perspective that assumes something very different than my perspective. I'm not arguing that my assumption is correct or that your assumption is wrong. I think that your perspective makes perfect sense given your assumption. I do prefer my perspective for some specific reasons, which I'll get to later, not because it negates or disproves anything, but because it empowers me.
I don't think that I have made my perspective clear, because your feedback seems to be based on a different assumption. OK, enough already, I'll try to say what these assumptions are. Understand, please, this is bleeding edge for me, I'm groping to describe things.
Let me try first with an analogy. A child who is afraid of things in the dark might mistake a jacket draped over a chair with a floor lamp behind it as a monster. As long as the lights are out, i.e., as long as the child's imagination combines with his poor perception of the situation because of the dim light, it will probably be a tough sell to get him stop being afraid. Turn on the lights, show him that it's just a jacket, a chair, and a lamp, and he'll stop being afraid, at least of that particular "monster." What if much or even most of what we call "evil" turned out to be functions of our fear-prone imaginations coupled with poor information/perception? I'm not talking Christian Science here, I'm talking real life experience with things that can be examined and verified. We can actually figure out if someone "has it in for us" or not. We can figure out if someone caused us harm intentionally or not. We might not be able to prove it, especially if they refuse to be honest, but we can still figure it out.
I tell people that when the ____ hit the fan back in 1994, I freaked out on a number of levels. Looking back on it, I reacted to a finger and thumb to my head along with the power of terror. There was no gun. There was no monster. What was real was a bunch of SF people who, likewise, were reacting to a finger and thumb to their/SF's heads along with the power of terror. I didn't intend to terrify them. It just turns out that it's easy to do. I have no doubt but that they intended to terrify me. The prospect of losing the most important things in life would terrify anyone. Mine were my wife and my children, second to none. They deliberatly put me in fear of losing them, hoping that it would terrify me. They hoped that the terror would turn me back to them. My ex wife has admitted as much over the years. As it turned out, there was very little in reality to be afraid of.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I only wish that my faith back then had been stronger. Things would have turned out better than they did, maybe much better, not because my faith would have changed guns into fingers and thumbs, but because I wouldn't have reacted to fingers and thumbs as if they were guns. I also believe that faith can change guns into fingers and thumbs, but I doubt that we actually run into many real guns in our lives. Not in this country, anyway.
Maybe that gets to the point. Maybe the question is, "How can anyone who has faith consider himself a victim?" I can't feature Jesus as a victim, neither in his own mind nor in any way of thinking about him that isn't misinformed. He never behaved like a victim. I don't think that he ever believed that he was a victim in any sense of the word. Stephen certainly didn't either, even as they were stoning him. I can't say that I've noticed any sense of being a victim from any of the N.T. writers, regardless of what they experienced.
I think that the assumption that your perspective is based on is implied by your paragraph:
"Your emphasis is on the recovery side of things. Where you can choose to remain a victim or choose to overcome those circumstances and not let an abuser continue to control you. You WERE a victim, but choose not to remain a victim. I get that. But you need information to make that decision."
I agree, but that implies to me a view in which circumstances or "things" define whether or not a situation is abusive and whether or not those involved are abusers or victims. That's a situational view of "victim" and "abuser." It's a view from an external perspective, which in this case is understandable and valid, since you are looking at my situation from the outside. It seems from what you write that you are looking at the Owasso situation from the outside as well. My perspective is precisely the reverse, a view from the inside, at least as concerns my own situation. Whoever is actually involved in the Owasso situation doesn't see it from the outside, either.
Further, I think that Jesus' teachings about God, God's nature, and what it is to worship God indicate an inside-out perspective. God is a spirit, and those who worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. Do not judge by appearances, but judge righteous judgment. The Pharisees cleaned the outside of the cup and the plate, but ignored and denied the inside where they were unclean. Beware of practicing your righteousness before men, or you will have no reward, but rather give in secret so that your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Whatever comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this is what makes a man unclean and defiles him.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
My understanding of spirituality, the spiritual mind, spiritual discernment, etc., is that our grasp of the spiritual aspect of things hinges on what we truly believe about intentions and about what things are. Our own intentions boil down to what we believe that we want. Our intentions line up with our desires and, when we have conflicting desires, the choices that we make about them. None of this can be accounted for by looking at things externally. Therefore, and considering N.T. teachings about spirituality, intent and faith determine our grasp of the truth about a matter. It is also what constitutes the truth of a matter from God's perspective, who does not look at the outward appearance like men do, but who looks at the heart. 1 Sam. 16:7
We can discern intent or guess at it from an external perspective, but an external view of appearances, i.e., of the circumstances, words, behaviors, outcomes, etc., does not change the intentions that resulted in things being what they are. The intents and true beliefs of those involved caused the circumstances, words, behaviors, and outcomes, not the other way around. (At least, it can't be the "other way around" 100% unless we have absolutely no freedom of will to decide what we want and to decide what we believe.)
Read Hebrews 11 and see if you can find evidence that the people described there considered themselves to be victims. I don't think you'll find any at all. I think that the lesson of Hebrews 11 is, first and foremost, that we ARE what we believe. Doing what we have faith for or having faith for things to change or to happen one way or the other is secondary.
So, my assumption is that "victim" is defined not by circumstances or by what happens or who does what to whom, but as a function of what a person believes about circumstances, people, what they say and do, and first and foremost, about him or her self. What we believe about ourselves is the most important important thing. How others judge things from the outside is relevant, but not more important than how those involved see things from the inside.
Think about the people who were sawn in half or stoned, referred to in Heb 11:37. They "gained approval through their faith." In what way were they victims? They looked "not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." 2 Cor. 4:18 I think that if we told those people that they were victims, they would tell us that we are paying attention to the wrong things.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Well, that's the best I can do at this point. On to the rest of your post...
Your comments about information and guilt were insightful. Groups like SF can't exist if they don't control the flow of information into the group, out of the group, and within the group. There is always a circle that defines the group, demarks what is inside and what is outside the group, and information gets controlled accordingly. It's all about keeping people's attention from going outside the circle and getting access to information that contradicts or discounts what goes on inside the circle. Since they can't control information flow outside the circle, they outlaw or dismiss it to everyone inside the circle. A very clever way to dismiss it is to claim that everything from the outside is tainted, carries with it something evil or stupid or ridiculous or insidious, something that will harm or deceive you if you aren't careful.
I agree with you that as long as a person is being exploited, especially if they are trapped into the exploitation, they are victims. I'd consider myself a victim of the delusions I was operating under and the people who promoted those delusions when I was an SF member in good standing. Information control is how people are victimized in 1-on-1 abusive relationships, too. There the circle usually includes just the couple involved and their children, if any. Information control is how children can be abused by one parent without the other parent knowing or, when the other parent does know, how the other parent is kept in fear so that he or she won't rescue their child. Information control is why narcissists are so frustratingly impervious to reason. Their circle can include just them. You can almost see them twist the information you give them so that it doesn't disturb those neat little worlds that they maintain inside their circles, not in the least. Everything they hear and see proves to them that they are right, thanks to those twists that happen as the information crosses the edge of their little circles. You would know that they are right, too, if you could only see things as they really are, as they do.
In all these situations there is usually (always?) a finger and thumb and the power of terror involved. The victims believe that they are "safe" or at least better off if they stay within the circle. They might tell you that it is "wonderful" in the circle, whether they call the circle "the church" or "the brotherhood" or "the fold" or whatever else. The finger, thumb, and power of terror during the days of McCarthyism were the dreaded pinko Commies. It doesn't need to be a religious context to work the same way. And although it does involve guilt, even more it involves terror.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
When you meet "true believers" you don't get a sense of the terror underneath it all, just like you mentioned about SF members feeling empowered. Some might be motivated by guilt, while others aren't. They all feel far away from the terror because they believe that they are protected inside their group from all that evil stuff outside. They all believe that the terrifying stuff exists, it's just that they are far away from the danger. If things changed and they feared that the terror was coming upon them for whatever reason, hmmm--let's say like if the entire group started treating them like spiritual lepers--suddenly they won't feel so powerful anymore, guilt or no guilt. They would all (and I've seen them do just this) start scrambling to get back inside where it's safe. That's when you realize that they, too, were subject to the terror, even when they felt empowered. I watched this happen to dozens of people. I watched many of them betray their deepest relationships in order to get back inside where it was safe. And by that I don't just mean betraying relationships like husbands and wives and children; I mean betraying themselves and what they knew to be true. I watched people exchange the truth for a lie, again and again.
Your bully analogy is right on and right in line with what I wrote about victims and abusers. There is a way to deal with bullies, which is first and foremost to refuse to allow yourself to be framed as their victim. It comes down to whose story you believe. The bully certainly wants you to see yourself as his victim. And it really doesn't take everyone standing up to him. More often than not, it just takes one or two.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that spending time on SF was "wasting time." Judging from the amount of posting I've done on this blog, that would be somewhat hypocritical of me, don't you think? ;) I was just trying to make the point that SF is not a big fish. My comments about the Catholic Church were from a much longer-term perspective. I don't think that anything that goes on in Owasso can compare to a single battle of the Crusades or a single sitting of an Inquisition court. In fact, I think it's ridiculous that the terrible evils that have been perpetrated by that organization for millennia get so easily minimized and explained away. Again, we must be looking at the wrong things to let them and other huge, corrupt religious institutions get such easy passes.
So, thinking of the Owasso situation, there are things that could be done. You mentioned that this SF leader still has access to your young people. Why? School boards are not courts bound by rules of law and evidence. They are severely PR-pressured groups. Newspapers love a story. Put the information out where it will have some effect on the school board that pays the jerk his salary. What seems so formidable? Certainly not him, I hope. This isn't about winning an argument. Get parents to write letters, picket the school, make a to-do about it. What's the holdback? Is the story not being told, or is the story not clear enough to tell? Are people too apathetic, or are they considering it to be a special case and that their kids are immune? Are people scared to do something about it? I've circulated letters to concerned parents for much, much less. We ousted a vice principal who was basically running a little Gestapo program at our middle school, persecuting any kid who he decided didn't meet his standards for a good student, even good students. Here's where SF has a great little weapon: they will accuse you of backbiting, defamation of character, having an "evil root of bitterness" that makes you malicious towards them, etc., anything to discredit your information. Funny thing about information. Eventually it illuminates everything, even after they shoot the messenger. After all, it's not like they'll saw you in two or stone you. :)
I'm friends again with arnold fourie, which I'm glad : ) still have smith's friends cult nightmares often : ( ------------ interesting sidenote, arnold fourie like doesn't e-mail me all the cults gobbly gook anymore : ) which I'm loving! Before he was more like a robot, sending me cult gobbly gook to fill my mind with, now I'm seeing more arnold fourie the person, which is way better! They ain't out to brainwash me anymore : ) or arnold fourie isn't : ) it's a good thing : ) (he used to not allow me to talk about myself either, he said he only wanted to know me after my spirit - and I think they all wanted me to only know them after their spirits - which made it super hard for me to know them all the years I was with them I was always uncomfortable around them they just wouldn't talk to me open up to me never at all none them, I knew there was people there somewhere but they weren't letting me see that)
It is also important to remember that this group has no problem with trying to intimidate other people. This girl’s family was assaulted at the wedding of their daughter by the sons of this SF leader. They have threatened people, including Keith, with law suits and SF has a history of actual law suits internationally in places like Austria and India. We also know that some of this local group, including this teacher, carries a gun. This requires a certain amount of caution on the part of everyone here. Not fear, but caution, none the less. Where there is a combination of alcohol, drugs, and guns, it is wise to be cautious.
It is my personal opinion that this teacher is fortunate that he still has a job. Fortunately for him, many of the people in this community, who his group would classify as ‘harlots’, are people who understand that they have been forgiven for their sins and try to extend that same forgiveness to others. Many try to live according to the scriptures the way God has modeled for us through Jesus Christ; extending grace even when it’s not deserved. If they weren’t self-controlled enough to ‘crucify their fleshly desires’ he would have much to be concerned about.
One of the interesting things about the Bible is how honest it is about the history of God’s people. It does not try to paint a picture of perfect people who always followed all of God’s laws. The Bible is painfully honest in describing the imperfections of God’s people. God did not lay down a requirement that they be perfectly pure in order to be His people. David is the classic example. He is described as a “man after God’s own heart”. He was also made painfully aware of his own sins, yet he repented and made amends and God still used him and blessed him for his faith.
Zacchaeus is another example. Jesus confronted him with his behavior and Zacchaeus promised restitution. Jesus’s response was “Today salvation has come to this house….”
If God can forgive and bless these people in the Bible, there is still a chance for all of us, including this Smith’s Friends leader, to repent and live a life worthy of the gift of grace that God offers to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Harold:
Your comments about what you've observed of SF members in Owasso and on Facebook are very interesting. I have zero contact with the group here outside of my ex-wife and an occasional nasty encounter with my sister, who is still a committed SF member. The most outspoken leader opposed to Kaare Smith taking over the head spot was Olaf Bekkevold. He warned that if Smith took over, Smith would "destroy the church." By the standards in effect in SF from its inception until that time, Smith has done just that.
To answer the questions from your post that I have in email but has mysteriously disappeared from the blog:
"So why separate from the 'world?'"
This is what I call "sleight of mind." Give people a rationalization for what you want them to do so that they don't notice what it's really about. The separation thing is rationalized as a matter of righteousness and purity ("keep oneself unstained by the world" James 1:27, etc.) but that's never been the real reason. Now that there is little discernable difference between SF and the world as far as righteousness and purity goes, it's even more clear. The separation is maintained to ostracize members from the influence of those not loyal to the group, pure and simple. It's an information control technique. First, don't let them access the information. Then, for all the information they do access from outside (you can't ostracize them 100%), make sure that they discount, dismiss, and distrust it. He who controls the information, controls the people.
"As an insider, what do you think would be her reaction to her parents and all those other people outside? "
She'd probably react like any addict does when his/her supply is threatened. Anyone who interferes is an enemy, even if they are trying to save his/her life.
"As Christians, what is our obligation to these SF members? Is vengeance appropriate? Doesn’t God want these people to know the truth as much as any other people on the planet?"
First, we have multiple obligations: family, friends, neighbors, world at large. You mentioned the influence the teacher/leader still has on children. I consider that a high priority that takes precedence over more general obligations.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Second, your introduction of "vengeance" was interesting. I trust that's not the only way that you can understand a move to remove the teacher from his privileged position of influence over the students he has contact with. Removing him isn't about vengeance, it's about consequences.
Sure, God wants the same good things for SF members as he does for saints. However, inappropriately softening the consequences of someone's actions, SF member or saint, on the basis of the notion that God wants good things for him is not showing them God's goodness, it's showing our own spiritual weakness. We not only represent a God of love, but a God who is a consuming fire. A lot of Christians have a problem reconciling these two sides when it comes to how they act towards others. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what it means to love. I think a good model for a healthy understanding is how we would treat our children. We don't spare them when they go astray, for their own good. Our responsibility to our fellow man is to support and advocate God's perspective as best we can understand it. Sometimes that involves bringing consequences to bear for reprehensible actions. If this seems to conflict with an attitude of love and forgiveness, I suggest that the conflict stems from misunderstanding love and forgiveness.
You mentioned SF intimidation through law suits, even physical confrontation. What did the "assault" at the wedding actually consist of? These things are all the more reason to take action against them. It doesn't take a history degree to realize that bullies of all sorts will go as far as we let them. They don't stop until someone stops them. It's a cop-out to cite a bully's threats and behavior as the reasons why we don't stop him. Those are the reasons that we should stop him. If we don't, the reasons why we didn't stop him lie elsewhere, within ourselves.
Millard: I don’t know what happened to the first part of my last post either. It was there and then it wasn’t. I will repost it, for the record, in three parts. Maybe this will work better.
Milliard, I agree, the Catholic Church, and other religious organizations have perpetrated far greater abuses on humanity throughout history. I’m not giving them a pass, but this blog concerns a specific abuse which is happening today.
You talk about how the SF members feel protected inside the group from all that evil stuff outside, as if they have a corner on the market for righteousness. That is typical of any high control organization, whether it is religious in nature or not. They see the group as their protector and savior. As a Christian organization, in my opinion, they lose sight that our real Savior is Jesus the Christ. It is that personal relationship with Jesus Christ that sets us free from dependence on any earthly organization. Churches, including SF churches, are made up of humans, of whom the Bible says have ALL sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. The idea that any human organization or place is perfect or “the new Jerusalem” on earth is taking their focus away from God. That is a lesson from the Bible; that we should trust in God and not on earthly things made by men.
In regards to the situation here in Owasso let me ask you a couple of questions. First of all, let’s assume the parents of this girl were to lead an organized effort to have this teacher dismissed from the school. Obviously this girl moved in with him and his family in order to be “safe” from those “worldly” people outside. As an insider, what do you think would be her reaction to her parents and all those other people outside?
As Christians, what is our obligation to these SF members? Is vengeance appropriate? Doesn’t God want these people to know the truth as much as any other people on the planet?
Millard: I'm working on a response to your previous post, but in the meantime I wanted to ask a question to Giving_it_to_god.
Giving_it_to_god: You said “he only wanted to know me after my spirit”. What does it mean to know somebody “after their spirit”? Can you explain what this means to you?
Millard: regarding your last post, I agree with everything you said about vengeance and consequences.
Thinking about your analogy of a drug addict; if the parents are responsible for taking away the source of her “addiction” wouldn’t that do more harm to what little relationship they might have? Don’t you agree that this is a very delicate situation for the girl’s parents?
It must be remembered that the doctrines preached by Smith’s Friends got this whole thing started in the first place. Their focus on Luke 14:26 for instance. This SF church is working very hard to undermine any relationship that exists between this family and their daughter. For the parents to make a concerted effort to have this man dismissed from his privilege of teaching plays right into their hands. The parents become even more of an enemy. Hate and fear are tools used by groups like this to unify the members and maintain control. Hate for people who expose them and fear of the world out there that they think is trying to persecute them. This instills the belief that the group is the only safe place and to stay safe they must conform to the group standards.
I understand your references to how we, as parents, treat our children, but that is a perspective which puts God in the position as the father and not us. We are more like the siblings knowing what is going on and waiting for God, the father, to hand out judgment.
That doesn’t mean we just sit back and let our brother walk all over people either. We have both talked earlier about how important information is and its relationship to control. Groups like this try very hard to avoid the public spotlight. The reason is obvious. If people don’t know what they are, then they can most likely fool them. The way to counter this is to let everyone know the story. Put it out there so that eventually most people will know about them. That will do much to make their lies ineffective, and limit the damage that they can do. They may paint you as an enemy but that can only go so far if they have nothing else to back that up. What P.T. Barnum said is true, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Like most liars, their web of deceit is a tiger that must be fed constantly and the bigger the tiger gets the harder it is to keep fed.
Also, what we naturally desire to do isn’t always what God wants us to do. Sometimes the best thing we can do is get out of the way and let God take care of things in His time and in His way. Discerning when to act, and when not to, can be a difficult call.
It is interesting that you use the addiction analogy. Steve Arterburn wrote a book called “More Jesus Less Religion” where he talks about counseling people who come out of groups like this. He refers to their condition as a “spiritual addiction”. Some highly intensive groups can produce a high that is physically similar to a drug induced high and, like addicts, the members need to keep feeding that tiger. His treatment for these people is much like the drug addicts that he treats.
Regarding the assault at the wedding, the girl’s family was warned the day before that the brothers in this SF family had plans to beat up the girl’s brothers at the wedding. Although the girl’s family was not permitted to invite their family friends to the wedding or to be involved in most other wedding activities of their only daughter, they were invited to attend the wedding and the reception. After the reception, while in the parking lot and preparing to leave, the girl’s family was confronted by three brothers of the groom who attempted to provoke a fight with girl’s father and her brothers. These SF young men ran around the corner of the building in pursuit of the girl’s family. They got in the face of the girl’s father and brothers screaming obscenities and eventually started pushing one of her brothers. After it became apparent that they could not incite the girl’s father and brothers to strike first, they eventually left. There were many witnesses to this act and a 911 phone call.
One of the interesting things about this incident is that many of the SF guests were watching and did nothing to stop it. All the bridesmaids who were girls of the local SF families were also watching the event take place and cheering for a fight. The evidence leads one to believe that this incident was premeditated on the part of the local SF families with the full knowledge and support of the SF leading brothers.
By the way, I should provide a legal definition for the word assault. Section 641 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma State Statutes says:
“An assault is any willful and unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another.”
A further expansion on this definition is:
“The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.”
I believe that assault is the right term for this event.
Giving_it_to_god has expressed her fears of physical harm from this group. Most people reading this blog may feel like this is unwarranted. Based on events here in Owasso, I not sure her fears are baseless.
Hey Harold, that wedding your talking about, is the guy a derkatch is last name. I did hear alot about that mariage a few years back , but the people from that church was saying its the girls familly that was rude and was doing all kind of stuff....... anyway I know those boys, I am just a bit suprised they would do that, but now with what I am going throught, seen that the SF and my ex wife are trying to take my kids away from me and Brain wash them from not having anymore father, well nothing will suprised me anymore in this world.
Harold:
We're pretty much on the same page, I'd say. To answer your question:
"Thinking about your analogy of a drug addict; if the parents are responsible for taking away the source of her 'addiction' wouldn’t that do more harm to what little relationship they might have? Don’t you agree that this is a very delicate situation for the girl’s parents?"
I understand and agree, but I'm not sure that the parents are "responsible for taking away the source" of her addiction. No one is responsible for someone else's addiction. Besides, I'd gleaned that the girl is an adult. The impacts to their relationship are there, but it's neither easy nor simple. What kind of relationship do they now have when she's practically disowned them? What is there left to damage? I think this is all very similar to trying to deal with an addicted loved one who is still in denial about their addiction.
About God as the father and us as siblings, I'd just look at it like sometimes we need to be the big brother.
The "best thing we can do is get out of the way and let God take care of things" is not an attitude I'm fond of, for several reasons. First, God doesn't choose to act primarily apart from his children, but through them. That's a main point for the whole notion of the body of Christ: we now incorporate his spirit on earth. If we don't act, who is left to act? Second, if there is a general tendency to err in our society, it is strongly and by far the tendency to be passive when we shouldn't be. Don't get me started on that one. I'm sure for the few times we might act when we shouldn't we'll score dozens of times that we acted when we should. Finally, I've watched that kind of thinking in action for decades, personally. Usually, the ones who cite it are the ones who choose to be passive for other reasons, not because they want to leave room for God. That has been pretty clear because they didn't leave any room for God in other situations when they should have. The common denominator has been concern for themselves rather than others.
Another interesting thing that being passive avoids: mistakes. I've always loved the Proverb "Where no oxen are, the manger is clean, but much revenue comes by the strength of the ox." Give me a choice of being with a messy, productive person or a fastidious person who gets little done, of course because they spend so much effort on keeping things clean and tidy, and I'll pick the messy one every time. High achieving people know that there is no such thing as real success without a lot of failures, or real productivity without a fair bit of mistakes, false starts, and waste. The way we avoid those drawbacks in industry and commerce is by developing repeatable processes. But before they are refined and repeatable, i.e., while things are developing, while we are pushing the edge and doing new, progressive things, they are messy. If we're staying too clean, we aren't very interested in developing and growing. Just watch a kid.
I've got some things to say about doctrine later, but I gotta run.
Harold:
Regarding your statement:
"It must be remembered that the doctrines preached by Smith’s Friends got this whole thing started in the first place."
I'm not trying to "beat a dead horse," but this is one point that I think religious people in general, not just Christians, get WAY wrong.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, makes decisions or acts on the basis of doctrine. Doctrine by its very nature is after the fact, a matter of rationalization. Doctrines are expressions that communicate truths (if they are true at all) that were experienced by people PRIOR to coining the doctrines and WITHOUT the help or influence of those doctrines. That's on the originating side. On the receiving side, by the time a person accepts a doctrine as "true" it has passed through a whole slew of deliberative and motivational filters that revolve around the person's internalized values and convictions. To the degree that a doctrine has been internalized, it becomes a natural, organic part of the person's thinking and psychological makeup. That's what it means to internalize something. It starts with truth and ends with truth. Doctrinaires get stuck somewhere in transit. Doctrine is at best the external expression of those original experiences with truth and a way to communicate about the internal values and beliefs that result from accepting those truths. At worst, doctrine is the external cover by which people pretend that their internal values and beliefs are one thing when in fact they are something very different, i.e., hypocrisy.
This is pretty clear just from thinking through how a doctrine comes into existence and gets shared. First, someone, somewhere experiences a truth, however that might happen. There was no doctrine that God is named "I AM" until Moses encountered the burning bush. He experienced it first, expressed it later. Then the whole point of expressing a truth in a teaching or doctrine is so that other people can come to know the same truth. If they get the doctrine and miss the truth, we have a label for them: scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. If a person gets the truth out of a doctrine, the important thing to them becomes the truth. The doctrine becomes secondary, a means of communicating about the truth.
As long as people consider doctrine as something more than an expediency, a means by which we make sense of and communicate about our values and beliefs, God's truths, and the truths and priorities that are clear by observing reality, i.e., nature, the creation, science, etc., those people will continue to play right into the hands of others who consciously and deliberately manipulate doctrine as a tool, using it to further their own agendas by doing everything from exerting undue influence to coercing and bullying to justifying their abuses and brutality. When people place primary importance on doctrine, as many do, it doesn't make them pious. It simply sets them up to become victims of doctrine-abusers. Even those doctrinaires who try to avoid abusing doctrine miss the point.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
When you try to DO what a doctrine teaches us, you find out what it really does and doesn't mean. You find out what truth is in it. Once you learn by doing, by mistakes, messes, hard knocks, and of course those much sought-after successes, i.e., by experience, the truth that the doctrine expresses becomes a matter of heart. When that happens, it's not a doctrinal matter anymore. That's what I think Heb. 10 is talking about when it says that God doesn't desire sacrifices and offerings. "Behold, I have come to DO your will." In particular the following:
And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them," he then says, "and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Heb 10:15-17
In other words, as long as God's laws remain a matter of externalized rules and doctrines, they have not yet been internalized. When they have been written on our hearts, they have been internalized.
When a truth has been written on our hearts, we don't refer first to its externalized expression, i.e., doctrine. We don't do that with knowledge we gained from having read textbooks. That's the whole point of knowledge: recall without intermediary, right from our internal apparatuses. That kind of knowledge is, I would say, less deeply internalized than things that have been written on our hearts. If truth has been written on our hearts, doctrines become secondary. If doctrines are our primary concern, it raises the question whether their truths have yet been written on our hearts.
If God's laws haven't been written on our hearts, it really does us no good to know and "believe" doctrines. What does that mean, anyway? How can we truly, sincerely "believe" a doctrine without it having been written on our hearts? If we can separate "belief" from those things that are written on our hearts, wouldn't that be the definition of dead faith? I think so.
Most of the doctrinal discussions I have witnessed and been part of through my life revolved around two things. First, trying to set a standard for other people's thinking and/or behavior. Second, trying to figure out what it is that we are supposed to do or are expected to do. Both of those concerns are different than DOING what the doctrines teach us. The first is about other people. It really has nothing to do with what we think and do ourselves, except in an I'm-controlled-by-others-so-I'd-better-control-them-first kind of way. It amazes me how important an issue the control of other people is to "believers." The second is relevant only BEFORE we have done and experienced doing what the doctrines teach us. Once we have gained experience in doing what the doctrines teach us and, as a result, their truths are written on our hearts, our "tutor" is no longer necessary. Doctrines then become a convenient way to communicate about those truths that have been written on our hearts. The important things are the truths themselves, not the feeble means we use to communicate about them.
This is one way to intentionally manipulate and reform an individual’s thinking and beliefs. In some cases, such as this, it could be whole groups of people. People like Jim Jones, David Koresh are two well-known examples that readily come to one’s mind. Referring to those outside their group as ‘harlot’ is one good example of SF doing this. Do they listen to Biblically-grounded worship music from anyone outside of SF that puts the focus on worshipping God and His divinity? Do they read materials from other well-known, spiritually-solid authors outside of SF without doing it just so they can criticize them? What would be the purpose of wanting to turn people against others (including their own loved ones) who aren’t part of their group? This is yet another indicator of a spiritually unhealthy church group.
It is very distressing when our words can taint, sour, destroy an individual’s life and/or relationships because we’ve used such negative words in our vocabulary that causes one to fear, hate, become depressed, be suspicious of everyone around them whom they’ve loved and trusted over his/her whole lifetime. When we focus on the negative of everyone and everything we encounter, pointing out the faults and weaknesses in them, we can become hateful, negative, bitter, envious, depressed, uninterested and lifeless. I believe that God wants ALL who are followers of Christ to stand unified and show love and support for one another…not be divisive and full of condemnation.
“Therefore encourage one another and build each other up,” 1 Thessalonians 5:11
“Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” Romans 14:19
“The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:9-10
“Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:25-31
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.” Philippians 4:8-9
Millard: “I have no doubt but that they intended to terrify me. The prospect of losing the most important things in life would terrify anyone. …”
I think for most people, unless they are mentally unstable, an alcoholic, or a drug addict, the thought of losing a spouse and/or children would be terrifying. I’ve witnessed people who are so far gone on drugs/alcohol that their reasoning and normal God-given emotions were totally eroded and their overwhelming desire for alcohol/drugs was what drove their actions/behaviors and they lost everything, including their whole family.
But, what kind of ‘church’ deliberately intends to terrify and/or put its members in ‘fear’? This is one of the forms of manipulation used by individuals and groups such as the mafia, thugs, and gangs. In fact, there has been much in the news recently about the Mexican drug cartels. They use threats of people losing things (life, family, ranches, homes, money-things people have invested interest in) in order to instill fear in subjects they want to intimidate, steal from, take advantage of, victimize, harm. Members from SF claim they want to become like Jesus and do the things that He does, yet we have heard numerous accounts from people that testify otherwise. I can’t locate anywhere in the Bible that Jesus intentionally or unintentionally ‘terrify’(ed) people in order to turn them to Him. He told the truth, He loved ALL people unconditionally doing what is best for that person (even while they sinned), met people’s needs, spent time with and listened to them, treated them with respect, and gave them freedom to live their lives according to the interests and talents He instilled in each of us. He didn’t attempt to terrify us with the intent to coerce us to do what He wants. He gives us a free will or free choice.
Millard: “Further, I think that Jesus' teachings about God, God's nature, and what it is to worship God indicate an inside-out perspective. God is a spirit, and those who worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. Do not judge by appearances, but judge righteous judgment. The Pharisees cleaned the outside of the cup and the plate, but ignored and denied the inside where they were unclean.”
When we are more concerned with outside appearances than with what God is concerned with, we are missing the target. God wants us to become more like Jesus in the way He thought and felt and therefore had an outpouring of love and treated others with compassion, love, tenderness, kindness, patience, understanding. If we are desiring to look good on the external, it appears we are more worried about what man sees than what God sees (our inside thoughts, desires, and which spills over into behavior). We need to be concerned with the things God is concerned with and the Bible clearly tells us that is people and the condition of our heart.“But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7 No man-made organization nor any man but Jesus Christ will get us into heaven.
Millard: “We can discern intent or guess at it from an external perspective, but an external view of appearances, i.e., of the circumstances, words, behaviors, outcomes, etc., does not change the intentions that resulted in things being what they are.”
By witnessing ‘circumstances, words, behaviors, and outcomes’ one is able to discern intent and/or get an indication of what people inherently believe. Behaviors from several within SF gives outside observers a reason to believe that that their ‘intent’ is not to love others the way Jesus does, show compassion, grace, mercy, tenderness, gentleness, unselfishness, but rather grow their organization for their own profit.
Millard: “Information control is why narcissists are so frustratingly impervious to reason. Their circle can include just them. You can almost see them twist the information you give them so that it doesn't disturb those neat little worlds that they maintain inside their circles, not in the least.”
Anything that has been ‘twisted’ into anything but the truth is a lie. Jesus always told the truth; He didn’t twist it, so anyone in whom the Holy Spirit dwells would also tell the truth. But, as has been witnessed, there have been many lies told.
Millard: “Everything they hear and see proves to them that they are right, thanks to those twists that happen as the information crosses the edge of their little circles. You would know that they are right, too, if you could only see things as they really are, as they do.”
“In all these situations there is usually (always?) a finger and thumb and the power of terror involved. The victims believe that they are "safe" or at least better off if they stay within the circle. They might tell you that it is "wonderful" in the circle, whether they call the circle "the church" or "the brotherhood" or "the fold" or whatever else.”
This type of behavior was observed in members of Jonestown when members claimed ‘they were happier than they had ever been before’.
Millard: “I watched this happen to dozens of people. I watched many of them betray their deepest relationships in order to get back inside where it was safe. And by that I don't just mean betraying relationships like husbands and wives and children; I mean betraying themselves and what they knew to be true. I watched people exchange the truth for a lie, again and again.”
From the sounds of it, I think that is what not only this girl has done, but probably many others in this group. She’s aborted normal, healthy, some life-long relationships with her own loved ones and replaced them with believing those who claim to be more Godly than others outside of this group. It sounds as if your ex-wife did the same. Some who were born and raised in this environment may not know any different. But, I believe there are those who have believed the lies over reality and truth and therefore have indeed, as you mentioned, betrayed themselves of what they once knew to be important-their own family, parents, spouse, children, siblings, friends, their own interests, their own beliefs of right and wrong, and their own relationship with Jesus. They are the victims. And when they might begin to think differently or independently, they are treated like ‘spiritual lepers’ so as you’ve mentioned ‘start scrambling to get back inside where it’s safe’ (to again take on the group think). Most people feel security in thinking their thoughts and behaviors line up with other people’s thoughts and behaviors. The truth is that as Christians, our real concern should be with whether or not our thoughts and behaviors line up with scripture.
A passage from a SF website states, “Our aim is to live according to such Christian values as righteousness, mercy, goodness etc. Our movement is founded upon biblical principles, such as caring for the weak, social work and tolerance. The preservation of the family values and obligations to the society in which we live are matters of prime importance to us.”
This can be deceiving to someone who doesn’t know anything about SF. But, for those who have witnessed otherwise, one should ask, “preservation of what ‘family values’ and preservation of ‘whose families’ values’?” It has become obvious that ‘preserving family values’ is not a ‘matter of prime importance’ to them if the family isn’t part of SF.
Just me: Your comment about ‘the people from that church was saying its the girls familly that was rude and was doing all kind of stuff.......’is not surprising. As Millard has pointed out a few times, it is impossible to ‘completely’ control the flow of information that members receive. So, one effective way to get someone under your influence or control is ‘to claim that everything from the outside is tainted, carries with it something evil or stupid or ridiculous or insidious, something that will harm or deceive you if you aren't careful,’ and also ‘then, for all the information they do access from outside (you can't ostracize them 100%), make sure that they discount, dismiss, and distrust it. He who controls the information, controls the people.’
One of the troubles with a group such as this (a world-wide organization connected by the internet) is the fact that someone can conduct him/herself in such a way or do something in one part of the world and then lie about it to others in a different part of the world. Since members inside the group don’t interact or have any friends outside the group locally, they can make up any lies they want and those in other parts of the world won’t be the wiser because they’re not present to actually know the truth. There is no accurate accountability.
If one is moved into another family’s home, always surrounded only by members of that family, and lied to about everyone on the outside (those referred to as harlots) including one’s own family and friends, it is understandable how people can become mentally, emotionally, socially, and physically detached from his/her own family and friends and even ‘the world in general’. This can even cause a person to be uncomfortable and unwilling to make new friends or become socially engaged in activities and functions that aren’t influenced or involved by others in the group.
So, I have a few questions. How many different families (not related) are in this group in Owasso, Oklahoma? How many people within SF truly know the reputation and character of this girl’s family (apart what they’ve been told from SF members) in order to draw their own conclusion? Do you know anyone who lives in Owasso who is not part of SF group that you can ask? And can you share some of the specifics of what you were told about the girl’s family being ‘rude and doing all kind of stuff’?
Hey Sophie, I am not suprise anymore by what I hear about SF, or Brunstad church whatever their name............ I have a few people from that church on my face book , most of them I have respect but when I wrote stuff againts my ex wife a few of them came to insulte me...........I am not suprise anymore with the way some of them are. Something I never and probably never will understand is when I met that church like 15 years ago, most of them was preaching agains other churches that was on television, they preaches againts church that had names , did not had any tv, girls had to weir dress in all time......... but today, most people in churches have tv with I never seen on in any house 15 years ago, they have brunstad church as their name and even have satelite tv from their conference............... I found it very confusing that 15 years ago, certain thing was a sin and today its not a sin, so what does that mean, do they still have the same GOD or they switches...........When I was their in the beginning some people was always looking at me to go testify when it was the time to go......... one of the last time I went to testify, just because I had my hand in my pocket , and older brother came to tell me after the meeting , that I should not have my hands in my pocket because I look like a preacher lol.......... who give a crap if I have my hands in my pocket or not, anyway most people that are not born in that church and was not brought up will feel left aside, cause for sure if your not born in that church you will be diferent from them and they dont seem to like that. I cant say that all of them are like that but some of them are......... I juste wish I knew what I know now cause never I would have had kids with my ex crazy wife.......I wanted to leave her before I have kids but some brother was telling me that it was not GOD will........ but they are ok now that I left that its GOD will for my ex wife to take my kids away from me.......to much confusion, all I can say its I have giving my best for my mariage and trying to be faithfull in the church but I guess I was not good ennuff........They suck you in by saying all kind of things that make sense and all but when its time to live it ,its all crap......I kinda lost faith in churches now cause when you trust people with all your heart and they tell you that I was in the best place in the world and say that their is no help outside the church....... well how come for a few month I was going trought ruff time with my wife and no one would ever know its going bad and try to help us , nah all they wanted its me to leave cause I was to much for them I guess but its funny that one of them know my ex and said to me she is crazy like her mother but he still use her when he need her to babysite is kids and whatever he need her........ my ex was listen to him more then listen to me lol. what kind of mariage is that, no wonder he like her even tho she is crazy, she will do anything he ask of her
Millard: I don’t disagree with what you say about passive people but let me ask you a question. Do you think that the Crusaders had the idea that they were doing God’s work on Earth when they laid siege on Jerusalem?
Regarding doctrines, I think you make my point. The SF rank and file members have rationalized and internalized the SF doctrine. Their doctrines communicate what they believe as truth; that all others outside of SF are harlots and demons and any young 18 year old girls that are of age must separate from and hate their families and adopt SF as their new parental authority. Of course, like Pinocchio at Pleasure Island, they have been deceived into believing that this is freedom when the reality is that they, like this girl, become much more dependent than they ever were before.
"If you really want to enslave people, tell them you are going to give them total freedom." L. Ron Hubbard July 23, 1963
Just Me: I don’t know where you are from but I get the impression that you aren’t from the U.S. I find it interesting that you would have heard a lot about this wedding. Why is it that you would have heard so much being so far removed from this place especially since you aren’t part of SF anymore? Like Sophie, I would be interested in hearing what kind of details you heard.
There was one school teacher here who remembered this SF leader coming to school with a black eye and claiming that this girl’s father hit him after the wedding. That was a total fabrication! This person believed it though, because they had no other reference point to make any other judgments until they met someone who knew the girl’s family. I don’t know what this person believes currently, but at least they have now heard the truth. Just like all the other SF people out there who probably heard all kinds of things as well, they don’t live here or know the family. How could they possibly make an informed evaluation about the events here?
That is why it is so important to control the information that people in these kinds of groups accept as truth. If you can control that, you can control what they think about anything.
That incident about the car that RssnSpy6 recounted is another example of how information is being used within the group to control what the girl and other members think.
It seems that most SF members are quite happy to believe those things and shun this girl’s family in the process without ever asking questions. And the girl’s family has no platform, no method or opportunity to defend the truth within the closed SF community. It is only through comments like Just Me and RssnSpy6 that we have an opportunity on this blog to expose some of these lies and hopefully cause some of the SF members to do a reality check.
Even Keith, in his opening comment, shows some wisdom in not just believing what the parents told him but talking with others who were close to the situation. He said “(NOTE: I'm speaking from information I've been told by the parents and close friends of the family)”
If the girl’s family had a reputation for such things, I don’t think Keith would have made the comments that he did. He probably would have thought: ‘Oh, that doesn’t surprise me’ and never commented about it on his blog. Instead, Keith’s initial comments illustrate his disbelief that this girl would turn so drastically against her family. This obviously did not pass a reality check. It was not reasonable behavior for this girl or family. Let’s not forget the comments from Heart2Heart.
Anyone who knows this girl’s family knows the truth. That’s why they can only spread their lies throughout the isolated SF community. Those lies won’t last long here. There are too many people who know the truth.
This girl was the only national merit scholar in her graduating class of about 600. She and her family have many friends in the community. Her brothers and cousins graduated from the same school with many friends who know the family. If the girl’s parents and family are so psychotic that she had nowhere else to go but this man’s home (while she was supposed to be living at the university), how is it that her brothers and cousins (some of which are still in that school) seem to be so normal?
I hope that others like Just Me will come forward to let us know what other lies are running throughout SF about this girl and her family.
Let’s also not forget that the SF organization as a whole has a history of breaking up families. This family and at least one more family here in Owasso, Millard’s family, Fredrick Griess’ family, and Just me’s family are a few that we have been made aware of. I think there are at least three more that have not been discussed on this blog.
This SF family has employed a systematic approach in changing this girl’s knowledge and beliefs about her own family. I believe that evidence exists that SF is attempting to do the same here on this blog; manipulate people’s (all people, including other SF around the world) knowledge and beliefs about this girl and her family.
Just Me: “Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Jn 10:7-10
One of the mistakes that a lot of people make is that they put their hope and trust in other humans. Whether it is a person, a company, a church, they are all made up of other humans who are sinful. We have all let someone else down for one reason or another. Jesus came and said don’t put your faith in other people, He is the shepherd. He is the only one you can trust completely. You can’t trust SF, Brunstad, my church, or me.
This story of SF is the same throughout history. It’s as old as the Bible itself. Just about any religious organization throughout history is guilty at some point of pointing their finger at other religions and saying they are wrong. Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, you name it; they have done it.
That is what is so different about Jesus Christ. He didn’t come and build a church building. He didn’t leave behind an organized political system. He didn’t leave anything physical of His behind to worship, not even a body. He simplified everything when He said, “The most important one…is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” He couldn’t make it any simpler. People come along and try to complicate things by adding their own requirements.
When the people at the Temple approached Peter in Acts 2, they were “cut to the heart”. They asked “Brothers, what shall we do? 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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.’”
He didn’t say they had to pray five times a day, or sacrifice so many animals, or DO anything besides believe in the name of Jesus Christ. The only requirement from Jesus Himself is to believe in Him. How you treat other people is an outward sign of that belief.
You can tell a lot about a church by listening to what they say about other people, other religions, and other churches. What SF says and does is well documented. When they internalize those doctrines, it shows up in the lies and threats they have spread throughout this community and other places.
Harold:
Regarding the Crusaders, I think that the advertised reason for the Crusades was doing God's work on earth. Their actual reasons were probably quite varied. Maybe some of them believed that they were serving God. I'm sure that many did not. What I do know is that no war is ever fought for ideological reasons at the core. Wars are waged to control resources, period. The pretenses under which they are waged mean little to nothing, whether they are about freeing the Holy Land from the infidels or about WMDs and that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." There would have been no Crusdade if there hadn't been a wealthy enemy of God to fight in his name. None of the Crusades were about the land. The Crusdaders didn't want to emmigrate. And judging from what history teaches us about the behavior of people in places of high power, whether secular or ecclesiastical power, I think it's safe to say that the real minds behind the Crusades had no interest in the things of God at all.
So, why did you ask that question? I trust that it wasn't to imply that since evil can be done in the name of God, that actively doing things in the name of God stands at risk of being evil.
As for doctrines, if what I wrote proved your point, it's because you misunderstood what I wrote. You must have made an assumption that "SF rank and file members have rationalized and internalized the SF doctrine" because I'm not aware from what you've written that you have a basis in fact to claim that they do. From my dated experience on the W. Coast, the truth is that SF members more or less don't internalize it, just like anyone else when it comes to doctrine. How do you "internalize" the doctrine of the Trinity or the SF "hatred" doctrine? Speak and act according to it, sure. That's not internalization; that's following a rule or rationalizing what you were going to do anyway for other reasons.
Doctrine isn't used by SF as a guide for decision and behavior, in any case. Private advice from the local leading brother serves that role. In those settings, the leading brother will advise doctrine A for one person and doctrine Z (which contradicts doctrine A, by the way) for another person about exactly the same issue, depending on which way the "wisdom" of the leading brother dictates that it should go. That's a fact that you would have no way of knowing unless you'd spent a lot of time in the group.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
At the same time, I don't think that this is radically different from any other group, not even those that aren't considered to be "cults." Doctrine is always for public matters in public view. It takes interpretation and judgment to apply it to private, real life situations, whether you are SF or Catholic or indpendent Protestant. That's actually been alluded to on the blog. It takes judgment for a SF member to decide that this family should be "hated" and alienated in this situation but not that one in that situation. The doctrine doesn't supply that judgment. That's indicated like it is anywhere else, by private advice, raised eyebrows, insinuations, silent tension, pregnant pauses, and all the other many forms of social conditioning. It's only the obtuse who can't pick on those cues who actually need to be told. Or the resistant and rebels.
The Christian obsession with doctrine troubles me. The words Jesus spoke were spirit and life. The flesh profits nothing. Doctrines apply to things that can be seen and judged according to rule or law. Christians make far, far too much out of their doctrines. So did the Pharisees. Here's what Paul thought about the doctrines that Christians prize so highly:
"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Col 2:20-23
What we do and say to our our children in the privacy of our homes and to our spouses in the privacy of our bedrooms and to our trusted friends when we're completely off the record says more about our state in God's eyes than all the doctrines we "believe" put together. On that point SF leaders and many, many other Christian leaders have failed. Their children know the truth. Those who are watching when they aren't on stage know the truth. The truth of doctrines that we have actually internalized shows up in our most private settings, not the kinds of forums in which Christians love to show off and argue about "what the Bible says."
Harold, the reason I know all this , its only been a bit over a year that I stop going to that church.........the one who got maried to this girl is about my age and I knew him since about 13 years ago, I always find that he was a nice guy.......that familly before they move to the place they are now they would go to the same fellowship where is my ex wife is now........the leader of that church is the brother of that teacher you talk about, I know them.......I dont agree or disagree with everything that is been told on this forum.......I did have lots of respect for lots of person in that church but in any church in any kind of religion I think their is good and bad people........the thing that really get me angry about some people in that church is that they think they know everything......Before I have any kids with the crazy ex wife, I wanted to get divorce and everytime I would tell some of the people from that church, they would tell me its not GOD will and I should try to work it out, but deep inside I knew she needed some real help but in that church, most people believe their is no help outside the church........The only reason why this church keeps growing and growing , its because of all the kids they have......rarely that some ousiders would be able to settle in that church cause they will feel out of place.........Its kinda funny that I know 2 other men and they got brought up in that church and got maried then left the church and their ex wife are still in the church with the children.......exactly the same thing that happend with me, I know that the leaders and some other people in the church will never argue with the women that have kids cause they know if she leave they will bring the kids with them.......Its seem the most important thing in the church is to have control on the children so if the husband leave well then the mother feel stuck with all the kids so they probably think they could never survive outside that church.........Some are liers , they told me lots of things and now when I confront them they ignore me saying they never said certain things and the church have nothing to do with my seperation lol......sure they have nothing with my seperation cause I wanted to seperated longtime ago but because I was brainwash I end up having 4 kids that I have a hard time to see.......some of them will say that nobody stop me from seeying them lol,well how can I be able to live in the same city of my kids when the cost of living is high and I have to give half my salaries to my ex wife.......now the gouverment have seize have my check today......they believe I could live with 800 per month when it cost more then that for an appartement lol .......They talk againts all other churches but they cant even look inside their churches to see the things that goes wrong, if someone have doubt about stuff in the church well they will try to brain wash and if it dont work, they will make sure the people leave the church ......their is to many hippocrites
Millard, my point about the Crusaders was that many “religious” people (not just Christians) believe that they are behaving and acting according to the doctrines they have been taught. They have “internalized” them, or believe those ideas to be truth. There are Muslims that believe in the doctrine that says they should kill all infidels. They have internalized that doctrine to be truth and act accordingly. I am sure that there were some (not all) Crusaders that believed they were doing God’s will.
In the same sense, there are those SF members who have internalized the doctrine that they are THE Bride of Christ and Jesus Christ was a man who became a God and they act accordingly. If all other Christians outside SF are harlots then why waste time getting to know them. If those people are not going to be in Heaven with you, why waste time on them, they are already dead.
By the way, if you are too prideful to care about other people isn’t that a sin too? If you claim to have “victory over sin” wouldn’t that be a sin itself?
The behavior of this local SF fellowship illustrates that they have internalized this doctrine. It has become their belief and they act accordingly.
Millard, you said “We are ALL defined by our behavior, not by our doctrine. Doctrine is what we say we believe. Our behavior tells what we truly believe.”
I agree and I have always said that if you want to answer Keith’s question about whether or not this is a cult then you have to examine their behavior, not their doctrine. Do they exhibit the same behaviors as the People’s Temple, or David Koresh, and all the other such groups? I believe they do.
This girl has internalized what she believes to be the truth in SF doctrine as in Luke 14:26 which they interpret to mean that in order to get closer to God you must separate from your parents. Her behavior has demonstrated what she believes, and this belief, this doctrine, was taught to her by Smith’s Friends, Brunstad Christian Church, Smith’s Venner, Owasso Christian Fellowship, whatever name they are using today.
I understand what you are saying about the local SF leader changing things depending on the situation. That is a typical cult behavior (and narcissist behavior as well). I think those would apply to daily situations that happen. But there are also the global doctrines that are defined by the writings of Sigurd Bratlie that illustrate what they believe are global truths and their behavior is consistent with those beliefs. The whole world outside of SF is evil and is persecuting the “Church”. Jim Jones said the same thing in Guyana. He convinced his followers they had to kill themselves because the U.S. government was persecuting them and the military was on their way to kill them and they didn’t want to be tortured and killed by them. It was more humane to kill themselves. They internalized that belief, that truth. The real sad truth is that the whole thing was a lie fabricated by the narcissistic mind of Jim Jones.
Just me: I have no doubts at all that your experience with this family was good. I think that if I had the opportunity to meet Jim Jones back in 1960’s I would have said the same thing. I am sure that he came across as being a very nice guy. You don’t gather a following of people by being mean to them.
There is a game called Apples to Apples where you have a lot of cards with names of people, places, and things. One of the cards has the word “cult”, and underneath that word it reads “But they seemed so nice”. I thought that was particularly appropriate.
You said “Its seem the most important thing in the church is to have control on the children so if the husband leave well then the mother feel stuck with all the kids so they probably think they could never survive outside that church”.
This is a very common control technique by many people. In one on one abusive relationships, the wife can feel completely dependent on the husband. Particularly if they have children, the husband often takes advantage of the wife emotionally and enforces the idea that she is completely dependent on him. He likes to make her think she is nothing without him.
What you describe is very similar. In this scenario, the church becomes the abuser and they manipulate things so that the members become dependent. If you believe the rest of the world is evil and there is no hope outside that church then you become dependent on them, at least socially. In the case of these women, is there financial support too?
People like you, and Millard, have experienced what happens when you get in the way of the abuser. You can get removed, which is just fine with the group because that makes the wife and children more dependent on the group for support and they get to indoctrinate the children.
Hitler did the same thing with the Nazi youth program. There are elements of the same forces at work today in the education system here in the U.S. and other places too. The theory is that if you want to change a society, you need to start by indoctrinating the children who are too young to have other knowledge of history, cultures, or ideas. Get to them early so you can mold them into your way of thinking. Isn’t it ironic that this SF leader is a school teacher?
Harold,
You and I are obviously working with very different definitions for the term "internalize." You seem very convinced in what you wrote, which is as it should be. All I can say is that, as a response to my posts about doctrine vs. internalized truth, what you wrote misses my point by miles. I'm not sure why the disconnection is happening.
Just me said: “most of them I have respect but when I wrote stuff againts my ex wife a few of them came to insulte me.”
I don’t know what ‘stuff (you) wrote againts (your) ex wife’ or what type of insults they made toward you, but what you’ve said is not surprising; it is the same type of behavior that has been experienced even on this blog. By going back and looking at some earlier posts, it can be seen when someone questions or disagrees with SF jargon, or exposes their lies, a typical tactic is to begin insulting. This is a behavior some people use to shut others up when someone disagrees with them. For those who are young, weak, inexperienced, or insecure, this method may prove effective. But for those who engage some critical thinking and refuse to be manipulated or controlled by ridicule and insults, it doesn’t work.
“Something I never and probably never will understand is when I met that church like 15 years ago, most of them was preaching agains other churches that was on television, they preaches againts church that had names ,”
Why would a ‘church’ spend its time ‘preaching agains other churches’ instead of focusing on preaching/teaching the Word of God? Is that really what Jesus would do? Did He really spend time being critical of others? Or did He spend time teaching people about the love of God, spend time worshipping God, spend time loving others, healing others, showing mercy, respect, compassion to others no matter who they were or what sin they had committed? Criticizing other churches is one mechanism used to turn people against those outside of their group and give themselves a sense of superiority as ‘The chosen bride of Christ’. It gives an ‘us versus them’ mentality. These are characteristics of a cultic, unhealthy ‘church’.
“did not had any tv, girls had to weir dress in all time......... but today, most people in churches have tv with I never seen on in any house 15 years ago, they have brunstad church as their name and even have satelite tv from their conference............... I found it very confusing that 15 years ago, certain thing was a sin and today its not a sin, so what does that mean, do they still have the same GOD or they switches.”
Those are man-made rules-none of which has anything to do with what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross, salvation, being reconciled to God, or even becoming more Christ-like. God is not concerned with our outward appearance as He is with our hearts.
I believe this is one way to be able to detect an unhealthy ‘church’. ‘Church’es (the leadership) that put their own spin, interpretation, heavy emphasis, or twist on scripture, put into place man-made rules (usually enforced by private advice, insinuations, silent tension, raised eyebrows, pregnant pauses, phrases like, “you don’t have to do……., but everyone else does…..”), are more interested in controlling people than allowing its ‘members’ to use the mind God gave them and be able to make choices for him/herself based on their own relationship with Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and God’s Word. When we try to exert control over circumstances and other people (how they think, what they do, who they hang out with, etc.) it reveals our lack of faith and trust in God. We want to be in control, so we get what we want, what’s in our best interest.
“I juste wish I knew what I know now cause never I would have had kids with my ex crazy wife.......I wanted to leave her before I have kids but some brother was telling me that it was not GOD will........”
When someone tells others what ‘God’s will’ is or isn’t for his/her life, personal boundaries have been/are being invaded. God communicates to each individual through His Word, the Bible. Some people even claim that God has spoken to them audibly. But, if God has a specific will for an individual’s life, wouldn’t God speak to/direct/lead that person and tell him/her what ‘His will’ is for that individual. God won’t tell someone where He wants their friends, their church members, or their family members to work or live, activities they should or shouldn’t be involved in, whether or not they should attend university, what their area of study should be, whom they are to marry, with whom they should or shouldn’t be friends, whether they should or shouldn’t have children, what clothes they are to wear, whether or not they should have televisions, what food they should or shouldn’t eat, what cars to drive, what restaurants and stores to patronize, …the list could go on and on. Those are decisions that an individual should make on his/her own with God leading/guiding them (without undue pressure or influence such as ‘private advice, raised eyebrows, insinuations, silent tension, pregnant pauses, and all the other many forms of social conditioning’.) A preacher/teacher should stick to preaching/teaching the scriptures without adding his own interpretations, twists, and opinions. This is why having knowledge of the original language with correct meaning is beneficial, useful, practical, profitable, advantageous, valuable, important, wise, imperative, significant, essential.
God does use individuals to preach/teach and influence others. We see that in a few Biblical examples such as Jonah, Samuel, and Paul. Not always, but many times this was done to whole groups of people and with messages about how much God loves each of us, being separated from God, how to be reconciled back to God through His divine mercy, believing who Jesus said He was, putting faith and trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, how to lovingly and compassionately treat others, being honest, kind, gentle, righteous, self-controlled, patient, faithful. But, having someone tell another person what ‘God’s will’ is for his/her life is overstepping boundaries.
“but they are ok now that I left that its GOD will for my ex wife to take my kids away from me......”
As Millard pointed out, “Private advice from the local leading brother serves that role. In those settings, the leading brother will advise doctrine A for one person and doctrine Z (which contradicts doctrine A, by the way) for another person about exactly the same issue, depending on which way the "wisdom" of the leading brother dictates that it should go.”
It appears that it’s really not God’s will that they are espousing, but rather the leading brother’s will.
“one of them know my ex and said to me she is crazy like her mother but he still use her when he need her to babysite is kids and whatever he need her........ my ex was listen to him more then listen to me lol. what kind of mariage is that, no wonder he like her even tho she is crazy, she will do anything he ask of her”
The word ‘commodity’ comes to mind. It doesn’t sound like these people truly love like Jesus does, unconditionally and with others’ best interest at heart, but rather use people to gain what is profitable for them.
Harold said: “One of the mistakes that a lot of people make is that they put their hope and trust in other humans. Whether it is a person, a company, a church, they are all made up of other humans who are sinful. We have all let someone else down for one reason or another.”
Harold, you made a good point about humans being sinful, but I’d like to add that humans are limited in knowledge, wisdom, and power. Even if our actions may not be sinful and we are attempting to do the right things, we still can’t be perfect in every decision or action concerning everything and everyone. Sometimes we may unintentionally do things that hurt others like forget a special day or interrupt someone or say something that hurts someone’s feelings. Those wouldn’t necessarily be considered sinful, but careless human characteristics. Because we are finite, we aren’t always aware that we’ve hurt someone else. We can’t always see what God sees, we can’t do what God can, and we can’t always be where God can be. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Putting our hope and trust in another human being or company or church will somehow always disappoint or let someone down because we are not perfect here on the earth. But, I don’t know of anyone who has ever been hurt or offended by someone who is doing things like being kind, unselfish, honest, thoughtful, loving, truthful, gentle, loyal, patient and taking others’ feelings into account. Those things never seem to be offensive to anyone.
Sometimes our actions may unintentionally hurt others. Sometimes we aren’t even cognizant that we’ve hurt someone. Other times, we are very much aware that our actions are hurtful or harmful to others. When we intentionally hurt or harm others, it is a sin. As Christians, we should make every effort not to hurt others.
2 Corinthians 8:21, “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.”
Millard: “Doctrine isn't used by SF as a guide for decision and behavior, in any case. Private advice from the local leading brother serves that role. In those settings, the leading brother will advise doctrine A for one person and doctrine Z (which contradicts doctrine A, by the way) for another person about exactly the same issue, depending on which way the "wisdom" of the leading brother dictates that it should go. That's a fact that you would have no way of knowing unless you'd spent a lot of time in the group.”
“It takes judgment for a SF member to decide that this family should be "hated" and alienated in this situation but not that one in that situation. The doctrine doesn't supply that judgment. That's indicated like it is anywhere else, by private advice, raised eyebrows, insinuations, silent tension, pregnant pauses, and all the other many forms of social conditioning. It's only the obtuse who can't pick on those cues who actually need to be told. Or the resistant and rebels.”
So being a ‘leading brother’ can be quite rewarding and profitable. He is able to gain whatever profits him from his flock of followers by several means of manipulation. Whatever suits his purpose and pleasure, he gets because he’s the leading brother. If you want someone to join your group, you paint of picture of all the despicable, evil, corrupt people (including one’s family and friends) and things out there in ‘the world’ and safety and a pretense of righteousness within, preach hate, contempt, fear of those who aren’t part of the group setting up a dependence on those within. If you want to further the attachment and dependence, you move someone into your home and teach Luke 14:26 emphatically and preach that this is God’s will.
From the sounds of it, this teacher has intentionally come between a girl and her own family by making up lies and fabricating stories. He moved her out of a dorm (without the knowledge and approval of her family) where she was going to live while attending school and into his home which physically separated her from her own family and friends. By moving her out of the dormitory and into his home, the possibilities of her developing any new friendships (independent of his family) were severed. By inventing untrue stories about her family, and degrading and belittling them, she was emotionally detached from her family. Claiming they were ‘unaware’ that others were being hurt and relationships harmed isn’t valid. These weren’t accidental; but rather intentional actions. They’d be hard-pressed to convince anyone that they were unaware this girl was living in their home, not spending time with her own family. It is no doubt in anyone’s mind that breaking up relationships is hurtful and a sin.
Millard, if I haven’t understood your point I may not be the only one and I would like to understand.
You said “Doctrine is what we SAY we believe.” I get that. Just because we repeat doctrines doesn’t always mean we truly believe them.
“Our behavior tells what we truly believe.” I get that too. It’s been said on this blog more than once…Actions speak louder than words. Jesus said it like this:
“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” Luke 6:45
So where are you coming from?
Harold,
I'm coming from a realistic, experience-based perspective. In a sense, "internalized doctrine" is an oxymoron. Teachings and doctrines can either point out and encourage desirable realities or warn/prohibit against undesirable realities. No one internalizes values and truths simply because they read or heard them as doctrines. A doctrine we internalize must be transformed in a number of ways from its form as doctrine before we could truly consider it "internalized." The results of internalization are loves and fears and habits developed over time. If we have truly internalized "love your neighbor as yourself," our first inclination when we see an opportunity to help our neighbor is to WANT to help him. Short of that, we haven't yet internalized "love your neighbor as yourself," e.g., if we think, "Well, the Bible tells me to love my neighbor," or, "Pastor So-and-So says we should love our neighbors."
Another way to say this is that as long as something is a "should" and not a "want" it hasn't been internalized. An exception to this are habits we've developed over time. Habits are internalized in the sense that they are ingrained. I don't look at habits as matters of the heart as written about in Heb. 10:15-17. Either way, the internalization process has little to do directly with doctrine. Doctrine can introduce an idea to us, but that alone without a lot of other factors and forces doesn't result in internalization. More often, experience introduces us to ideas that get internalized, much more than doctrine does.
I think your comments overlook the process that takes a doctrine and transforms it into a matter of the heart, which is what I use "internalize" to denote. Habitual thoughts, assumptions, values, etc., that we pick up by osmosis have also been "internalized" in that they are part of our makeup. When we talk about "internalizing doctrines" in light of the New Testament teachings about personal transformation, (i.e., "sancitification", a most abused term in SF,) I believe we're talking about Heb. 10 stuff, not habits.
There is no direct connection between doctrine and internalized values and attitudes. Internalization takes place over time with the help of a lot of forces that have nothing to do with doctrine per se. I think that the process of internalization is extremely important. I also think that the most important forces at play in that process are things BESIDES doctrine. Doctrine is one of the least important.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Here are three considerations:
1) All doctrine is interpreted by specific people at specific places and times. What gets internalized by those people is primarily determined by factors unique to their interpretations, factors that have to do with things like socioeconomic conditions, personal relationships, and the goals and motivations of the people involved, not the doctrines per se. Doctrines are talking points. Internalization happens after the talk is over.
2) All doctrine is abstract. In order to make a difference in reality, whether good or bad, a doctrine must be applied in real life situations, that is, if it amounts to anything more than just talk. Applying a doctrine in a real life situation is a matter of judgment on many levels. The very same doctrine can be used to achieve purposes that are diametrically opposed to each other, even given the same interpretation. The judgment used and the results of applying a doctrine are much more important in determining what we internalize than the doctrine itself.
An example of #2 are the teachings in Proverbs about how to handle fools. Before you can use any of them, you have to decide whether or not you are dealing with a fool. Otherwise, you might treat a non-fool like a fool or allow a fool to get away with his folly. That's a judgment call that no doctrine can make for you.
3) Assuming that doctrine determines behavior and decision-making assumes that care about and respect for the doctrine exists on the part of the behavers and decision-makers. On this point, I think you give SF leaders way too much credit for integrity and assume that SF members are much less gullibile than they actually are. I speak from experience on that.
So, I think that your comments overlook these things and as a result place too much weight on doctrine as a cause of SF behavior. Doctrine is like company policy. Board room decisions and the behavior of staff are determined by events in which people might or might not keep policy in mind. It's no different with doctrine. No one ever loved because a doctrine exists about loving. No one ever committed murder or rape because of a lack of doctrines eschewing those things. They did what they did because they were motivated by forces much stronger than doctrine and stood something to gain from it, even if it was just relief from the pressure of incredible rage.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I think that this thing about doctrine is extremely important, because Christians have left themselves very vulnerable to manipulation by making too much out of it. Doctrine has its place and it's a good one, but thinking that it determines anything important is very naive. On the contrary, doctrine has actually been a great help to churches of all persuasions to rationalize and justify all kinds of atrocities. Doctrines didn't make them interested in committing those atrocities and justifying their behavior afterward. Doctrines weren't the causes.
Doctrine is what comes out of the wizard's mouth. There's no reason to believe that it bears any necessary connection to the thinking of the guy behind the curtain. And when you are dealing with a group like SF, you can be pretty sure that there's no connection. Their doctrines morph to suit their agendas, which these days seem to be all about financial accumulation, a complete reversal of what Smith, Aslaksen, and Bratlie taught. Even if doctrine were a primary cause of anything, SF behavior today VIOLATES the teachings of the "elder brothers." What's going on now is not the result of internalizing their teachings. It's something quite different. It's just not smart to pay too much attention to their doctrines. And I refuse to pay no attention to the guys behind the curtain.
If you want to understand the real causes of SF behavior, you'd have to be present in the private meetings where decisions are made. Please don't assume that the men who gather for closed, undocumented, policy-setting meetings at Torsteinslotta every year before the big SF "Brunstad" summer conference are men of conscience. You shouldn't think that their goals were inspired by the Bible or that they pay any respect to the Bible beyond how they can use it to further those goals. And don't believe that they consider their own teachings as anything more than tools to achieve their goals.
All that to try to explain. Did it help? :)
Millard: I think the wording I have chosen has been confusing to you and maybe others as well. I never intended to make the point that the SF doctrines drove the behaviors of SF. I totally agree that no rational person ever internalizes something simply because it is written down. I have no quarrel with anything you wrote, and yes, it helps me. I agree with what you are saying and I apologize for any confusion on my part.
I think it is like some companies that try to change the culture of their corporation by defining a new mission statement. I call that Management by Decree. I don’t think that works.
Like those corporate mission statements, doctrines that are written down are one of the few things that an outsider can analyze to try and understand the beliefs of a particular group. Their behavior may be something completely different than what the doctrines may define, but the doctrines are at least what they ‘say they believe’.
This can be a starting point for discussion with a group. For instance, I believe it is very clear from what I have read from Sigurd Bratlie that a SF person should believe that all outside churches are harlots, that the whole “religious world” is controlled by Satan, and that they are the only true Christians on the planet. Yet some of the SF people on this blog early on denied those concepts. So are they purposely defying their doctrines, are they ignorant of those doctrines, or are they just plain lying?
In my opinion, that is what makes this blog so interesting. If they are defying their doctrines then the SF leadership should know that and I think they would try to straighten them out. If those people don’t really believe those things then maybe, through this discussion, they will see this group for what it is and change something.
If they are ignorant of those things, then hopefully this discussion will educate them as to what the SF leadership really believes and they at least have the opportunity to make an informed decision about what and who they are associated with.
If they are just plain lying then they need to be exposed.
The other possibility is that the doctrines accurately define what the SF members have been taught and internalized “over time with the help of a lot of forces that have nothing to do with doctrine per se.” In this case their behavior would be a direct reflection of those doctrines and you can start to understand the thought process that drives a particular behavior.
In the case of this girl moving into the home of the SF leader, this would be a direct reflection of Sigurd Bratlie’s writings as I described earlier. So I think I understand the behavior. If they believe they are the only true Christians, then they would believe that they are saving this young woman from hell by separating her from her family. Now we have a place to start discussing why they believe that and where did this theology come from and how does it line up with Scripture.
The problem is that the behavior directly opposes what I believe that Jesus taught about loving other people. I believe that this was a central concept in the teaching of Jesus, that Christians should show love to all people, regardless of race, social status, or even religion. His parable about the Good Samaritan is an example of that. The Samaritans lived among the Jewish people of that day but were considered outsiders. Jesus did the unthinkable by actually talking with a Samaritan woman. He didn’t move her in with Him. But He demonstrated to His disciples how to treat other people, with truth, love and dignity.
This SF family obviously has no compassion for the girl’s family and the hurt that they have imposed on them. If they love their children and worry about them, why would they not consider that the girl’s family loves and worries about their daughter just as much.
Harold:
It sounds like we're on the same page. My comments were less about choice of words and more about the direct line between the events in Owasso (or any other action by SF) and doctrine. My point is that there is no direct line, not even a necessary connection. More often than not, doctrine is a smoke screen, not an indicator.
Another thing I was trying to point out is a mistaken assumption that Scripture-based believers typically make, although this mistake is not peculiar to them. It's actually a general problem that we all have: we assume that what makes sense to us should apply to others. This mistake is why people who defend themselves in court have fools for lawyers. This is why laws that make no sense get passed and remain on the books decades, even centuries later. Once you understand the rules and logics and especially the historical facts that actually were involved in a court case or a legislative process, it isn't hard to understand why things happened the way they did. They only seem bizarre when we try to hold them to a set of rules and logics that don't apply.
As a current example, people are starting to recognize the weirdness of the laws which enable companies to be incorporated and thereby regarded as legal individuals. One writer recently called the underlying premise "the bizarre notion that corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as human beings," and recommended Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection, (http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2007/11/unequal-protection) as an introduction to how the situation evolved in the US.
It's an interesting situation. Here we have legal entities which were formed for a single, overriding reason: to make a profit. Somehow, we expect these entities to behave with the moral senses of real individuals. We are appalled every decade by the corrupt corporations of the time, and yet we get surprised all over again when the next batch is exposed. WikiLeaks is promising that Bank of America will be exposed as yet another organization so systemically corrupt that Julian Assange told Forbes, "For this there's only one similar example. It's like the Enron e-mails." And Americans will be surprised, even amazed, even though B of A was probably every bit as corrupt a decade or three ago when "no one knew" or could imagine such a thing. After WikiLeaks releases the B of A info, maybe more idiots like Huckabee will call for Assange's execution, as if he's the criminal, as if he's even the problem.
What's amazing is our naivete, not the corruption of organizations whose prime directive is to make more money than can be accounted for by the value of what they produce. (That's the definition of profit" by the way.) What's amazing is that we expect something better from them. If we actually subjected corporations to pschological evaluations of their decisions and actions, (on the premise that they are "individuals",) I have no doubt that they would test out as flaming sociopaths. Yet we expect them to have "corporate consciences?" Groups behave like beasts, not people. Sophisticated, complex organizations just behave like sophisticated, complex beasts. We let their sophistication and finery and power make us think that they are something that they are not, so we get surprised when faced yet again with their sociopathic behavior. We apply rules and logics that are appropriate for human beings to entities that have no hope of behaving like them.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Scripture-based believers often make the mistake of assuming that those who claim to be Scripture-based actually respect the Scriptures. Just making the claim means nothing. Until you test the product, it's just advertising. If you are dealing with spiritual snake-oil peddlers who use the Bible as their concoction of choice, it's foolish to treat them as if they had respect for the Bible or doctrine or arguments that assume concern on their part about whether they conform to God's word or violate it. They are happy to discuss Scripture and the will of God with you not for the sake of sincere discussion, but to keep you engaged in order to influence you towards their way of thinking.
Ever notice what happens if you really nail an argument with a SF person like RussianSpy? You know, one of those rare times when both you and they know that you won on that point? They simply go onto another argument as if nothing happened. No credit to your side. If you call their attention to the point that they should concede, they play dumb--when did that happen?--or ask you to define terms or claim that you misunderstood what they meant. I call it spaghetti logic.
In my young bachelor days, we used to test whether the spaghetti was ready by throwing a strand against the wall. If it stuck, it was ready. The SF reaction to you making your point is, "Oh well, that one didn't stick; I'll have to try another one." It's bizarre at the time and can actually be pretty disorienting. You're left wondering if that part of the conversation actually happened for all the reaction you get from them. SF members and I presume others with cult-like mindsets are like Teflon Dons; nothing ever sticks to them. You, on the contrary, are particularly sticky. Why? Because you actually care about things like following Scripture and reasonability and sticking to facts. If one argument doesn't work on you, a SF member just picks up another one and chucks it at you to see if that one will stick. If they can use Scripture to do this, fine, they'll use Scripture.
In the mind of a SF member, this isn't about logical discussion, it's about spiritual warfare. They are trying to outsmart the evil/worldly/sinful/Satanic spirit that is clouding your ability to grasp truth. The proof that they've won the battle is when their quarry "gets light." Until then, they aren't dealing with you as a reasonable, sincere, intelligent individual, they are dealing with a poor lost, deluded soul who is under the influence of the evil one. They aren't actually trying to argue, strictly speaking. Logic and facts don't matter except to the "natural mind" according to them, and they are trying to free your spirit, not communicate with your mind. They are after spiritual enlightenment. If that can be achieved by withholding relevant information, even by lying (I've witnessed this too many times to count) it's all fair. And I'm not finger-pointing except by being fully conscious of the other three fingers pointing back at me. I am intimately acquainted with these tactics from both sides. I was pretty adept at dishing it out when I was a gung-ho SF member, and I say that to my own shame.
It's foolish to think that merely using Scripture indicates that SF members or leaders feel obligated to Scripture in any way. Scripture is just a tool, a means to an end. If another tool works better, they'll use that, even if doing so violates Scripture. I've watched them switch back and forth, now arguing God's will on the basis of Scripture, now arguing legalities in violation of Scripture on the basis of a court order obtained by lies, and then back again without a qualm. Anyone who has argued with a 14-year-old with a plan knows the pattern.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I understand that Scripture-based believers would love it if they could deal with life and people on the basis of Scripture and Scriptural argument. After all, they've invested so much in their Scriptures. The problem is that it only works on the choir. The Bible isn't persuasive to those who don't believe it, whether they call themselves "God's people" or not. I'm still amazed at Christians who use Bible-based arguments with unbelievers, especially when they can't grasp the self-defeating circularity of doing so. Or, if you believe in such a thing as spiritual warfare, it's like a general who confronts an enemy thinking that he can discuss the enemy into surrender. Take your pick. You can't be a diplomat and a warrior at the same time.
If you choose diplomacy, the first thing you have to do is find common ground, somehere that you share the same views and concerns as the other party as a starting point. Jesus showed us that way by coming to us here and becoming one of us. In contrast, most "evangelical" efforts do just the opposite and preach from a position of superiority, Billy Graham not excepted. If you choose warfare, you'd better have more to show than words and logic. And if your arguments depend on the very authority that's being contested, you've taken a really weak position, even for a diplomat. That's one reason why I think that Paul wrote, "For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." 1 Corinthians 4:20 In my view, when we resort first to Scriptural argument, we demonstrate our lack of power. Why would we use argument if we had, like Paul, the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" at our disposal? 1 Corinthians 2:4 If Scriptural, doctrinal argument is our only resort, we're impotent.
In my opinion, Kaare Smith and company are spiritual snake-oil peddlers, nothing more, and pretty successful peddlers at that. Their current program doesn't even try to conform to the teachings of J. O. Smith, Aslaksen, or Bratlie, all of whom despised the love of the very money that SF seems to be all about these days. I'm sure that Kaare Smith continues to boast about the "tremendous work of God" that SF is proof of, as he used to do when I knew him. And what does that tremendous work consist of? Membership, material and real assets, lots of money, and the "respect" that we all seem to automatically bestow on anyone, good or evil, who manages to accumulate a lot of them. One man's informed opinion.
If you can ever get your hands on a copy of Bratlie's "The Bride and the Harlot and the End Times," please give it a read. You'll see that SF is emerging as just another one of the "harlots" that Bratlie condemned. SF today seems to me like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm who, in the last scene, become indistinguishable from the men that they originally led a revolution against. When I left SF, the glaring difference between it and standard definitions of a "cult" at that time was its apparent lack of emphasis on accumulating money. Well, now I see that this was true of chapters in America, but not Europe. And now the entire organization is heavily involved in fund-raising, with all financial routes leading to Brunstad.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
By the way, they just changed SF's official name from "The Christian Church" to "Brunstad Christian Church," violating a position that SF maintained for almost a century against identifying itself by any name other than "Christian." See http://tb.no/nyheter/smiths-venner-bytter-navn-1.5931305. It's in Norwegian, but translating it to English is pretty easy on the Internet these days. Of course, I expect that SF will rationalize the name change by claiming that it's just a concise way of denoting "The Christian Church at Brunstad" or some such. The real and transparent reason is to make the Brunstad facility more visible as part of their ongoing effort to exploit their investment in the property. They have been fighting a battle with local authorities for years to make Brunstad a sports and entertainment center as well as conference center. Check out the local newspaper's coverage "Horses and Disco at Brunstad": http://tb.no/kultur/hest-og-disco-pa-brunstad-1.3551064, which will also need to be translated. It covers a February 2010 event at the Brunstad facility that included two days of equestrian games with some very unchurchy (see the photo) disco music for entertainment alongside. Anything goes these days.
Brunstad's "gospel" today seems to be, "Join us, work for us, send us the money, and God will bless you! And if not, come party!" I believe that the only "god" that is involved in their "blessing" or their "success" is the one Paul called "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. I'm not sour on their success. They are welcome to it. They deserve it. They've worked long and hard for it, and it's what they seem to want. It just has nothing to do with Jesus and very soon will be gone. Again, just one man's opinion, backed by Scripture.
Millard, “In my opinion, Kaare Smith and company are spiritual snake-oil peddlers, nothing more, and pretty successful peddlers at that.” “I'm not sour on their success. They are welcome to it. They deserve it. They've worked long and hard for it, and it's what they seem to want. It just has nothing to do with Jesus and very soon will be gone.”
“Brunstad's "gospel" today seems to be, "Join us, work for us, send us the money, and God will bless you!”
Millard, I agree with your opinion. The problem with this is that their ‘success’ comes at the expense of other people. They lie and use twisted, out of context scripture, claim that other Christians (those who aren’t members of Smith’s Friends/Brunstad) are harlots, instill doubt and fear of the ‘outside world’, demean, judge, belittle, denigrate and compare themselves to others in order to convince their followers that they are the chosen bride of Christ and more serious Christians. These deceptive tactics are ‘tools’ that groups such as these intentionally use to cause division and separation from those with whom relationships have been cultivated over a lifetime. They intentionally lure people away, divide, and separate them from their own life-long relationships for the purpose of building their own ‘church’ group and raising funds. This has nothing to do with being a Christian. As a matter of fact, this behavior is anti-Christian because their ‘success’ is achieved by exploiting people. It appears that in the Smith’s Friends, there are those who do the exploiting (the leaders) and those who are being exploited.
Exploit-take advantage of, abuse, misuse, ill-use, manipulate.
“the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” 1 John 2:6-1
The Scriptures tell us that Jesus walked in truth and in love. If we are to ‘walk in the same manner as He walked’, shouldn’t we too walk in truth and in love? Jesus interacted and spent time with many different people, not just those in His own church group and He was always truthful. He didn’t exploit people by moving someone into His home and proceed to deliberately turn him/her against his/her own family by lying to and about them, belittling his/her family, disregarding his/her family’s relationships and any prior friendships. That isn’t the way Jesus did or would walk. If you really love someone you don’t exploit them. Jesus didn’t exploit people.
Matthew 15:1, “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.”
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Millard: I believe much of what you said about corporations also applies to governments. I have had the opportunity to interact with many Europeans and some of them seem to have the mindset that government bureaucrats and politicians know what is best for the people. I find that naïve. Jesus referred to us as sheep, and that is a very fitting analogy.
I believe that is why the guys who wrote our U.S. Constitution were focused on limiting the powers of our government and upholding the power of individuals. That is what makes this country unique in the world, and something that we are always in danger of losing if we don’t continually strive to protect our individual liberties from an ever growing government.
Millard, I also find it interesting when you said: “Scripture is just a tool, a means to an end.” I have often had that discussion with others about religious based coercive groups. I believe that guys like Jones and Koresh used the Bible as a tool to manipulate others. They obviously, deep down, did not believe it. They simply learned to use it to control others in order to meet their desires, as Sophie pointed out, to exploit them.
I have also read some of Bratlie’s and Aslasksen’s writings, including “The Bride and the Harlot” and I agree with your observation, that SF today does not follow their own leadership, much less Jesus Christ at least on some points. A lot of what they say is true and I can agree with, I also believe that much of what they write is fertile soil for the cult behavior observed in the group. Isolating members from the rest of world and believing that you alone have the truth spoken through your prophets…etc.
Take for example in Aslasken’s piece called “Lying and its Nature”. He is correct when he says “There is a lot of this hypocrisy among preachers and leaders.” I agree with that statement. I am sure that there is hypocrisy among some preachers and leaders in many churches and that includes Brunstad.
However, I have to differ when he says “Do we have any self-will? Yes, we are filled to the brim with it! And all of it is sinful.”
God made us, man, and he gave us a free self-will. Since Adam and Eve it has been corrupted but I don’t agree that ALL of the self-will that God gave us is sinful.
My self-will has a desire to provide for myself and my family. Some people also have a self-will that leads them to play sports or do art for example. Those things are not sinful. If our self-will is to lie, cheat, deceive, or hurt other people then those things are sinful.
Aslaksen is consistent with Bratlie’s “Bride and the Harlot” when Bratlie writes “A perfect apprentice is one who gives up all his own opinions and plans and is obedient to his master.” And, “We realize that to be born again means to receive a new life with entirely new interests.”
If these new interests are to quit lying, cheating, and hurting other people then yes, I agree. But groups like this want to intercede between us and God and define what God’s will is for us. This is a tool they use to manipulate and control people so that their new interests benefit the group. The literature of SF has an abnormal focus on obedience and suppressing self-will. Groups like this will hammer it into the minds of their members and then interject their will as God’s will, and that is the real sin. And what is their will? To raise funds by coercing members to do things like mortgage their home in order to fund the conference center at Brunstad, or do volunteer “church work” at companies owned by the leadership.
Aslaksen didn’t come right out and say that everyone must be obedient to him, but from what many ex-SF people have said on this blog, including you, the underlying theme here is obedience to Brunstad. That is the kind of deception that Aslaksen wrote about. That would put him in the same category of hypocritical preachers that he spoke against.
Here is another quote from Aslaksen that I agree with:
“People are very interested in how they appear, how they look, and how they sound in order to give the appearance that they are God-fearing and good without it being so. This is therefore also dishonest. It is cheating. It is false. It is guile.”
This local SF group and obviously many others as well, do exactly that. One example is when this local SF leader was asked about his church and he claimed to be an independent group of believers with NO connections to any larger church body. That is a deception, exactly the kind of thing that Aslaksen wrote about.
I agree with Aslaksen in that some ‘people are very interested in how they appear, how they look, and how they sound’. Sometimes we can become so self-absorbed in our outward appearances that we completely forget about what God is concerned with. We can become so self-conscientious about our appearance that we use all our time focused on what we look like rather than being of any use to anyone else. There’s a saying that goes ‘We can be so heavenly focused that we don’t do anyone any earthly good.’
But, there are also people who make a concerted effort to dress and groom a certain way like wearing skirts rather than pants, hair pulled up, no jewelry, no makeup, etc. in order to lead people to believe they are ‘God-fearing and good’.
The Smith’s Friends have changed their appearances in recent history and from comments on this blog this was very controversial. Is this change to allow more freedom to their members, or is there a motive to appear more worldly in order to grow the church. What kind of compromise is this?
In 1 Samuel, we read, ‘Man looks at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart.’ Either way, God doesn’t care what we do or don’t wear as much as He cares how much we love Him and love others. And, if we want to become more like Christ, shouldn’t we keep our eyes fixed on Jesus rather than worrying what others think about what we are wearing?
One more question. Does the average SF member actually read Bibles that are published by “harlot” organizations? Or does SF publish their own version of the Bible?
Justme said: You asked awhile back about the guy’s name that we have been talking about. The answer to your question is yes.
You said you have known the man that this girl is married to for 13 years and you are about his age. Your perception of him and his brothers is interesting because, as Aslaksen wrote, appearances can be deceiving. What has been witnessed around here is something different. The girl’s family has also never had the opportunity to get to know much about the young man since the group was very successful at severing any emotional attachments between the girl and her family.
But then again, isn’t that the first thing that cults do when indoctrinating their members, sever any emotional and physical ties with all friends and family outside the group so that they become dependent on the group.
I also know a woman who has a sister that married into the Mormon Church. Some would argue that the Mormons are a cult. Even though they don’t live in the same state, this woman talks to her sister often and their families even spend quite a few holidays and vacations traveling together. At least they still have a relationship where they can talk and spend vacations together. This doesn’t seem to be an option if your relative joins Brunstad Christian Church. Which one is more cult like?
Like I said there have been many lies told by this group and it is not always easy to discern truth from lies. Millard is right that most of us on the outside are concerned about such things as truth and honesty because I believe that is what God and His word teaches; truth and honesty. It is lies and deceit that put us in bondage, the underlying battle since Adam and Eve.
A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will not go free. Pr 19:5
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Jn8:32
It may not win any battles with a hard core SF person, but then there are always those in any group like this that deserve access to the truth. Jesus taught his disciples “…that they should always pray and not give up.” Luke 18:1
Harold,
I agree with your insight from reading SF material, that the conditions were there decades ago to allow/foster abusive control of members. J.O. Smith's writings have less of it than Aslaksen's. They were both career military men, so I've always thought that contributed to some of their us/them, black/white thinking. Bratlie took a noticeable change in his writings towards more extreme legalism about the time he married J.O. Smith's daughter, Rachel, in the 1940s. Many in Norway believe that Rachel was the driving force behind getting her nephew Kaare Smith put into place as SF leader in the early nineties.
To your questions, my opinion is that the move towards fashions and practices that for decades SF considered "worldly" (meaning under the control of the "god of this world", i.e., Satan) is precisely in order to 1) retain young people and children and 2) make the group more palatable to outsiders. That's an outsider's opinion, because the external changes all happened after I was well out of the group.
Second question, no, SF doesn't have their own Bible translation. They used to poo-poo questions concerning Bible translation. You've got to remember that there was only ONE Norwegian translation of the Bible until the late 20th Century. Norwegians have never had several translations of the Bible to choose from, unlike English translations. New Norwegian translations seem to be driven by changes in the language itself and a rather slow process of "Norwegianizing" the Danish Bible, used in Norway since the 16th Century. Pretty much every 20th Century Norwegian used the "Bokmaal" translation of 1891. By mid-20th Century a new version of spoken Norwegian began to be gain popularity, called "Nynorsk" i.e., "new Norwegian". In the late 1970s a "Nynorsk" Bible became available. So then there were TWO. And of course, Norwegians think that their translations are the best. Seriously, even though it's laughable. Norwegian SF leaders thought there was something special about the Norwegian Bible, a bit like the KJV-only folks. How a language with less than a 100K word vocabulary could produce a better translation than, say, English with a vocabulary of over 600K words must just be one of those mysterious ways that God moves in. LOL
Check out (and translate) http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibelen_i_Norge#Norske_utgaver_1873.E2.80.932010 if you're interested. There are two Sami (Laplander) translations, too.
This my last post pry on this site, (cause geez I definately don't want to dig the hole any deeper then it's dug!) It's the people you are closests to that can cause you the most pain, and I'm that close to a massive slew of the brunstad christian church. I love them, and I need/want am going with my heart (for me their message is the best) and I love them for reals a ridiculous slew. http://givingittogod.blogspot.com/2011/02/im-sorry-brunstadorg-salem-fellowshipi.html
Giving it to God: I have read your blog at various times. After your last post on January 30 (which you have now removed), I took another look at your blog site. On January 12, you said:
“ hmmmmmmmm ok I'll try and make a list of why I think the smith's friends is a cult..........
1. breaking up families
2. brainwashing techniques often used in their conferences and services
3. they have many construction buisinesses what is a church doing w/construction buisinesses it's fishy at the very least
4. their kids threw rocks at my child on so many occasions it got to where I stopped bringing her there and they didn't do anything about it..............7 them jumped me w/intent to harm me stopping short of my face while rental cooking and nobody even said they were sorry not only that it isn't expected of anyone there to say they are sorry, I've gotten 1 sorry for all the @#%#@ they did to me
5. they add to the bible, their extra literature is given way to much importance they have many contests where the kids have to memorize the booklets least once or twice a year............when you be's having your children memorize by heart the churches "literature" it's more then just some nice books you have in your churches library also notice they don't have mainstream literature in their libraries just the cults pieces
6. to this day most them ignore my e-mails so thouroughly have they shunned and shut me out of their cult..........if your a real christian I expect you to love me and reply to my e-mails their fruit is : p
7. they had macleay solutions buisiness behind my back and hid their macleay solutions trucks and this is how I found out about that buisiness of theirs - not cool!
That's all I got for the list right now : ) they destroyed my life in my opinion, I still have a hard time trusting like anybody anywhere, but if you feel the need to go to this cult uh.........good luck and don't ever say anything bad about them or they'll ice you out like they did me.”
“I have to edit #3......so I don't get sued by them (I don't have no money to be affording to be sued) the day salem fellowship hid the macleay solutions trucks in the macleay christian retreat sheds they said kare smith helped them buy macleay solutions. And when I saw on one their sattelight feeds them building massive ships and a whole hillside of houses I saw on the sattelight feed.........I don't know if they had a official construction buisiness w/this fundraising effort of theirs. And pivot point, the other buisiness of salem fellowship...........I know for a fact they do building sheds decks small end stuffs, I know this cause one meeting I was at, marianne said they build her deck or something like that and told the church if anyone else has some decks they needed build etc. that they would do it for a "very good price" and then she winked at us.
I guess at that point I should've been getting a good deal on a deck, but that's how much pain they caused me, even the idea of nearly free man power didn't appeal to me.”
And then on February 2, you said, “I'm sorry brunstad.org, salem fellowship..
I need you all back............I been going through a real ruff time and I don't exactly fully fully believe what mainstream christians believe...........well I do.............but it brunstad.org, salem fellowship that has always been the biggest help for me -------- that message..........that message, of denying yourself and taking up your cross daily and following jesus, I do best hearing lots about that, lot's about how jesus was made perfect through the things he suffered that theme, most churches aren't super heavy on that theme like brunstad.org. And for whatever reason...............that's what I need to hear that stuffs, I do best hearing the brunstad.org's message (I mean more then just what you all have posted up on that website)
I need you all, I'm asking for all your forgiveness, I don't know how to mend the fences I ain't good at this stuffs.
Really it hit me how much I love this church..........I was in pain, in pain, in pain then more pain, then more pain, and then I was like whoa I love brunstad christian church. It's the people you are closest to that cause you the most pain in this life.”
So, what’s changed between these two posts? Have you now begun to believe it is ok to break up families? Or do you no longer really believe that Smith’s Friends/Brunstad actually has a history of breaking up families? Do you think it is ok to use brainwashing techniques in conferences and services and that it is ok for a church to own construction businesses? Are you now ok with your child having had rocks thrown at her on numerous occasions by this ‘church’?
You said seven ‘jumped’ you and no one apologized. Assaulting and throwing rocks at people are not acts that one typically thinks of as real ‘Christians’ committing. That’s not the way Jesus treated people. But, we are all only human and therefore imperfect and sinners, as the Bible says, ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’. That is why we need a Savior who takes OUR sins on Himself. No matter how hard we try we can’t be perfect and have ‘victory over every sin’. When we do sin how do we handle it? It doesn’t sound like those who do these things have victory over the sin of hate, anger, divisiveness, hurting and wronging others or are even trying to have victory of sin.
Proverbs 14:9, “Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright.”
You also mentioned that SF adds to the Bible and that they put too much importance on their SF literature, so much in fact that they have their children memorize this church literature? Do they put more emphasis on what their church leaders write than what God’s Word says? And do you no longer care that these people have shunned you? You are not the only one who has been shunned by members of SF/Brunstad church members. This must be a taught/learned behavior because it has been witnessed in so many places by many different people.
You wrote, “about how jesus was made perfect through the things he suffered that theme, most churches aren't super heavy on that theme like brunstad.org.”
Following is a statement on Brunstad’s site titled ‘Christianity-more than the forgiveness of sins’(Oct18, 2010).“By hating the lusts and desires in His own flesh, he brought sin to death and thus defeated death itself, which is the wages of sin.”
Can you give the Biblical reference for this?
Macleay solutions went out of buisiness of july of last year. And pivot point, man it's looking legit, you go to macleay christian churches website - it's looking legit, they are really really really a non profit. I have family outside of the church and I've always been able to visit them or talk to them as much as I want, to separate a person entirelly from there family is just not this churches mo.........if it was, why was I able to call my family or visit my family whenever I wanted? In all the instances where families have been separated it's a choice of one the parties involved (not necessarily both parties but 1 of the parties involved) I love this church so much I'm not only willing I have forgave them finally clean across the board. They've helped me so much over the years, I wouldn't even know what following jesus was without them (for reals). Long time I was in denial about my feelings for this church, but eventually I hit a point where I couldn't no longer deny with myself that I love these people greately.
Giving it to God said: “I have family outside of the church and I've always been able to visit them or talk to them as much as I want, to separate a person entirelly from there family is just not this churches mo.........if it was, why was I able to call my family or visit my family whenever I wanted? In all the instances where families have been separated it's a choice of one the parties involved (not necessarily both parties but 1 of the parties involved)was I able to call my family or visit my family whenever I wanted?”
Then what prompted you to write, “1. breaking up families” in the first place?
There are numerous families that have been ‘broken apart/separated’ from loved ones by SF/Brunstad Christian Church across the globe. In all these cases it has been made very apparent that ‘it’s a choice of one the parties involved (not necessarily both parties but 1 of the parties involved)’. We understand that. But, is it JUST COINCIDENCE that this ‘choice’ wasn’t made until ‘one of the parties’ began attending SF ‘church’ meetings and reading SF literature which places heavy emphasis on the idea that ‘everyone outside of SF/Brunstad is a harlot’ and Luke 14:26 taken out of context and twisted? I for one find it convincing evidence when this same type of thing happens around the globe where these people who ‘chose’ to separate have nothing in common except for SF/Brunstad.
I know a young person who recently made a ‘choice’ to become a Christian. His/her parents didn’t go to church with him/her nor were they interested in hearing anything about Jesus, God, salvation, or anything at all about the Bible. Although they had this difference of interest in Christianity, this young (and of age) girl/boy continues to have a relationship with his/her loved ones. His/her church group didn’t put heavy and out of context emphasis on Luke 14:26 or call his/her family/friends harlots, say they were stalking him/her, criticize or call them names behind his/her families’ backs, but rather taught him/her love, respect, honor, acceptance, kindness, grace, mercy, goodness, patience, understanding, forgiveness, just like Jesus taught and exemplified in His own life while on the earth. The church didn’t threaten, throw rocks at, or assault this person’s family/friends which were not part of this particular congregation of believers. The church didn’t teach deception, lying, hate, bitterness, division.
When Jesus lived on this earth, there were people who rejected Him and His teachings. But He continued to spend time with them, love them, teach them the truth, heal them, help them, and give them an example to follow. He didn’t reject them and turn His back on them. How can one win anyone else to Christ by turning their back on them, shunning them, being hateful to or critical of them. Although Jesus was God manifest, The Son of God, He never thought He was too good to spend time with sinners or those who were outside of His plan and will. He continued showing unconditional love for everyone, even sinners. He even sat down with Nicodemus, part of the opposition to His message and showed Him love. He didn’t ‘choose’ to separate or break apart from anyone, even His own family.
GivingItToGod: I just hope and pray that the decisions you are making are your own. You yourself have made comments about how deceitful that group is and how they have mistreated not only you, but your children.
You wrote this statement: “I have family outside of the church and I've always been able to visit them or talk to them as much as I want, to separate a person entirelly from there family is just not this churches mo…”
Let’s start with the idea that YOU could visit your family anytime YOU wanted. First of all you have claimed that SF has treated you as an outsider. You were not part of “their magic inner circle” as you called it. So why would they be concerned what you, an outsider, did at any time? And why, after all the things that you have written, would they allow you into that magic inner circle now?
Also, the teaching from coercive groups is that your outside family is lost, or of satan, and cannot be trusted, and not worthy of wasting time on. If they can instill this thinking in you then you wouldn’t WANT to see your family.
The other side of the coin for families whose children join SF is that these families often want to see their children and have a relationship with them but can’t. BECAUSE of SF teaching their children don’t WANT to see them or have a relationship. You may not want to see your family but do they want to see you? Are you available for them? Or is everything all about … you?
The other part of your statement is that this “is just not this churches mo…”. I think there is enough evidence from people all over the globe written on this blog to disagree with your statement. YOU may not have experienced this yourself but others obviously have. This is like me saying that smoking does not cause cancer because I smoke and I don’t have cancer.
Smith’s Friends, or Brunstad Christian Church, or DKM, or whatever name they use today, according to their own leading brothers (a.k.a. Elf Assura) who posted on this blog, that they “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.”
When Elf wrote this he did a good job of dancing around the issue by talking about how this only applies to “matters of faith”. This may sound good but when you explore the experience of so many other families around the world, and statements from ex-members as has been done on this blog I think the evidence says that Elf was deceitfully speaking in half truths.
Don’t forget the old SF hymn #370
Friends and family use persuasion;
Comfort for the flesh have they.
Bolt the door! Resist temptation!
All such comfort drive away!
And from another song “Reason and family ties now break with power."
Christian groups that truly honor family relationships do not sing songs like this.
In contrast to this, I was recently reading in 1Timothy 5 where Paul gives instructions to Timothy that relates to this subject.
“But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.” 1Tim 5:4 NIV
“Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1Tim 5:7-8
In this passage Paul gives a picture of how Christian families should relate to each other. Putting their religion into practice means caring for each other’s needs. It is hard to do this without any kind of trusting relationship. Paul evens goes so far to say that if you don’t provide for your relatives and immediate family you are worse that an unbeliever. He does not qualify that the rest of the family must be Christian. Even the pagan of that day took care of their own families. How much more so should Christians, who are called to a higher standard, to love even their enemies, they should at least live up to the moral standards of the pagans of that day and take care of those in their own families.
I know of someone else who left Smith’s Friends after 28 years. He made the statement that his biggest regret he has during his time in SF is how he treated his parents.
GivingItToGod, you are certainly entitled to your opinions but nothing you have said has changed my opinion. The weight of the evidence is on the other side.
I do agree with what you wrote on your blog about your anger. If you get angry, the only one who suffers is you. SF doesn’t care if you get angry, it just proves to them that they are right about you and all the other harlots outside the church. Jesus said to “turn the other cheek”. He prayed for those that persecuted Him. We should do the same. But that doesn’t mean that we lay down and let them walk all over us either.
Millard: Does the Brunstad Christian Church (a.k.a Smith’s Friends) print the writings of J.O. Smith in a format that looks like a Bible?
Harold, they didn't when I was in the group. I helped translate a few of Smith's letters for the English version. The English book was in a common hardbound size, brown with gold lettering, "Letters of Johan O. Smith," similar to the Norwegian version. I have no idea what might have been published since I left.
Actually, if they encouraged reading Smith's letters it would be a good thing. Maybe then some people would realize that Kaare Smith is doing exactly what they preached against as some of the worst practices of the "religious world." J. O. Smith and Aslaksen must be rolling over in their graves at the B.S. going on in their names these days.
when I returned, some them welcomed me back with open arms Romans 15:7 "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." If they be a cult if they really are even in that event, talking badly about them much isn't going to bring them in the flock, I can attest 1st hand...........when people love me, when people accept me as I am that is what makes a difference! And all the people that still revile me, that I give to god now. 1 Peter 2:23 "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:"
It is god that will judge us all, we are commanded 1 John 4:21
"And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." Sure we all fall short of the glory of god, we all fall short, I ain't no where near as loving and nice and wonderful to my family or friends or people in general as I ought to be. Love it covers a multitude of sins. 1 Peter 4:8 "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." I love you all to, I'm well buisy covering the multitude of my sins love love love love love after that love some more, and pray for your enemies, pray pray love love love
You all pry weren't reading my blog posts, there were a few not to long ago were "we" had almost taken this church down (I don't mean me and you all when I say "we") we were going to do it, we had it all planned out and it was working.........think how little this church has faught us. "We" were reaming them new ones, new ones. I knew I was having a impact. I had locked them up in hell. In my get vengance athon.
Love your brothers, love is the way. Thank god they have taken me back (well I don't have a official password yet but they are working on it) I need help!
This war, it isn't against flesh and blood like ever ever ever....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."
Maybe we all are battling evil forces???? I mean it could be! It could very well be! Love each other pray, this is what we can all do for each other..........I heard on christian tv 1/3 the angels that fell with satan was 1000's of angels, there's a entire googleplex of evil dark forces we all are in a war against every single day.
Love and prayer I'm sure of this this is the way, love and prayer, humility, and repentance. Then like deny oneself daily and take up your cross and follow jesus........while praying, and loving your brothers, and humbling yourself, repenting if needed. God can save his arm isn't to short he can save us all! LEt's pray let's love one another, then we are really fighting a war against the principalities and forces of darkness. My sauna's here yay sauna time : )
Giving it to god said, "we" had almost taken this church down (I don't mean me and you all when I say "we") we were going to do it, we had it all planned out and it was working.........think how little this church has faught us. "We" were reaming them new ones, new ones. I knew I was having a impact. I had locked them up in hell. In my get vengance athon.”
Who is ‘we’ that you make reference to?
It was never my intent to have a vengeance athon, but rather to reveal truth. Is telling what this group has done to others vengeance? Or is it equipping people with valuable and truthful information in order to perhaps spare others the same destruction, harm, damage. By revealing what SF believes and teaches, behaviors that have been exhibited worldwide, methods and approaches used to grow their ‘church’, it will hopefully keep others from being divided from their families and friends and exploited as has been done to others. I think it is important to remember this is not an isolated case.
“This war, it isn't against flesh and blood like ever ever ever....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."
Maybe we all are battling evil forces???? I mean it could be! It could very well be!”
We live in a fallen world so of course we are ‘battling evil forces’. Deceit, lies, distortion of truth, hate, divisiveness, selfishness, exploiting people are all sins brought on by evil forces which come from satan. Those behaviors certainly don’t come from God, in fact they separate us from Him. Doing things like throwing rocks at people, assaulting and threatening people, intentionally causing fear by lying about people’s own loved ones, calling people names, intimidation, coercion, moving a young college girl into your home, intentionally separating her from her own family and friends, turning your back on people, are all hateful, divisive, and demonic acts. This after all, this is why Jesus came to the earth, to demonstrate God’s merciful, undying, unconditional love for us and destroy the work of the satan.
Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
1Jn 3:8, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.”
In Ephesians 6: 10 Paul tells us that one part of battling against the devil’s schemes (plots, tricks, devises, plans) is with the truth. “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist…”
Telling truth and exposing lies is not vengeance, but rather fighting against evil. It is not fighting with flesh and blood; that would be physically harming or hurting someone. Telling the truth is extinguishing one of satan’s tactics, lying, which is what he has been doing since the beginning.
Giving it to god: “Love your brothers, love is the way.” “Love each other pray, this is what we can all do for each other..........
Love and prayer I'm sure of this this is the way, love and prayer, humility, and repentance. Then like deny oneself daily and take up your cross and follow jesus........while praying, and loving your brothers, and humbling yourself, repenting if needed.”
No one can argue with this. The Bible is rich in verses, passages, stories about love. That is what Jesus came to do. He came to demonstrate for us the love of the Father. He is a gift of love from God, a propitiation for our sins, the redemption from heaven. If God loves us and we claim to be a Christian, we also should love one another.
1 Jn 4: 7-11, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”
But, because Jesus loves us, He also spoke the truth. He didn’t lie to tickle people’s ears and tell them what they wanted to hear. The woman at the well probably didn’t like what she heard when Jesus told her that He knew she had been with five different men and none were her husband, but it was truth. Zacchaeus most likely didn’t enjoy hearing Jesus tell him he was wrong in cheating his neighbors, but it was truth. Sometimes the truth doesn’t feel so good and sometimes it actually hurts. But, pretending that we’re perfect and that we have no sin in our lives is deceiving yourself.
1 Jn 5-7, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.”
You make a good point at the end there sophie, we always have sin within us and should be acknowledgeful of that and I'm not 100% that the smith's friends are acknowledgeful of that ------- I'm not saying they aren't acknowledgeful of that I'm not trying to be mean or slander them, I'm just saying I'm unsure about that with them. I think I'm turning apostolic christian these days - like the hardcore of the apostolic christians the ones that wear doilies on their heads, I'm seriously crocheting a doily for my head! But I love the smith's friends, my love for them stands.
I wouldn't be a apostolic christian today, if I hasn't ever been with the smith's friends, it is the smith's friends that picued my interest into crucifying my flesh and loving not the things of this earth or the earth. They doing the work of the lord, they got the ball rolling.
I battle still, it's a battle everyday, everyday I have a choice to make.........I can deny myself and take up my cross and follow jesus...........or go the bad route. But recently I read lot of ozzy osbornes lyrics and that is the result of the bad route I don't want that, I want jesus everyday.
And as for the "we" hahahah oh ya I mean satan. I was in the cult long time the cult cult cult cult cult 3 years old I was for bout 1 year and 1/2 instructed nightly by a demon in the dark arts, 1st grade I decided to become a witch...................and went downhill from there. I need the hardcore on the narrow way churches, I need the straight and narrow it's the way to salvation for me. I don't want to be like ozzy and "going off the rails on the crazy train" no more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one sister one day said she really really believed nothing good dwelled in her flesh, so some the smith's friends at the very least are very convinced of this..........it's like anywhere in this world..........some people get convicted of something fast...........some little slower. I once thought I was the .............. of the earth - YIKES!
I think the bulk of them believe nothing good dwells in their flesh, which is the same as saying there's sin dwelling in their fleshes..........shhhhhh I need to be's not burning the smith's friends bridge down no more! But I'm pry a real apostolic christian : ) man this last sunday at the apostolic christian church, the service was OFF THE CHAIN.......I mean pastor couldn't of preached it more! I left like oooooooo oh maybe maybe I shouldn't be watching tv and being a friend with the world no more (and one their main pastors, geez I ain't been there for maybe a year long time, he told me "I'm always glad when you show up" the fear of god that sunk on me - think ya pretty sure even even called me by name!) Plugging in and behaving is all my intent across the board these days : ) no more crazy train!
Millard: The SF writings, at least on the surface and to those who are unaware, don’t seem to be very controversial. The Brunstad web site is a very polished sales pitch for their church that portrays them as just another Christian denomination. The Mormons do the same thing in their television advertisements; they claim to be just another Christian denomination, the “Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints”. They want the uninformed to think that they believe in the same Jesus Christ as all other Christians, which is a deception. Brunstad Christian Church does the same thing. The irony is that they work very hard to appear to be just like the “religious world” harlots that they preach against.
I am assuming that you didn’t know J.O. Smith or Elias Eslaksen personally. So your only knowledge of them would be through their writings and what others had to say about them. But can you really say that they weren’t just as controlling during their days? Weren’t they the ones that instituted the dress codes and ban on things like TV and other forms of information?
Could it be that they weren’t all that different than Kare Smith, they just were more subtle in their approach and not as greedy? Or maybe that people’s memories of them have been watered-down by time? There are still some followers of Jim Jones who talk very positively about him and the People’s Temple.
Millard: you said that it would be good if they were reading J.O. writings. Do you have any writings of J.O. do you have that you can share with us, or point to on their website that would be a good reference for your statement?
Sophie: I like what you wrote about truth. That is the battleground here. All coercive leaders like Jones, Koresh, and Hitler used the same tactics manipulating the truth. You even see it in current day political organizations that don’t want their lies exposed. Instead of debating the issues such as intelligent design, health care, or abortion some parties will use words like “mean-spirited”, or “hate-speech” to describe the opposition. This is often a defense tactic designed to intimidate and shut down any opposing thought or discussion. Smith’s Friends does the same thing, it is the trademark of all cults.
GivingItToGod: I find your turnabout very interesting because back in September of 2009 you said the following:
“And the smith's friends should just sue me, cause you can't buy me off, and appology while would be nice, won't shut me up (I know I'm never going to get a appology - at that church jumping someone w/intent of murdering them and stopping short of their face like happened to me at salem fellowship is perfectly ok saintly heavenly even) I pry could be bought off which is sad, there is a saying everyone has their price - but the good news is my price would be a entire vacation home : ) like free and clear! That'd pry shut me up : )”
And just last week you wrote: “…Thank god they have taken me back (well I don't have a official password yet but they are working on it)… My sauna's here yay sauna time : )”
Now you’re talking about the apostolic Christian church again??? You are a quandary for me. Your statements may lead people to think that the SF church bought you off. By the way, what kind of church is it where the women wear doilies?
Harold,
Smith died in the 40s and Aslaksen in the late 60s or early 70s. I never met either. No recordings of Smith's messages were made to my knowledge, but there are plenty of Aslaksen's, and I've listened to 20-30 of his messages. I've read heavily. I'd say that I have as much basis for my opinions on them as an average church-goer has for his opinion about his pastor, maybe more. That's partly what my opinions are based on.
In addition, no one inside SF or outside SF who is familiar with the group would deny that KS took the group in entirely new directions when he took over. SF girls used to get heckled because they wore skirts while skiing. It was common to hear that someone's boy was being fazed or beaten up at school because of his attire and reluctance to fit in. The SF dress code that was responsible for this was current until I left in 1994. No longer. That's just one very visible practice. I was informed recently by a current SF member that KS had "an epiphany" that to spread their gospel they needed money. I like to joke that he must be fairly unintelligent if it took an epiphany to figure that one out. The forced exodus of SF members who opposed KS in the early 90s (Olav Bekkevold, once the heir apparent, predicted that KS would "destroy the Church,") also attests to the fact that KS has taken SFaway from many of the practices and beliefs that the group was staunch about since it began.
Answering your "How can you really say that they weren’t just as controlling during their days?" would require speculation, just as it would if I asked you, "How can you really say that they WERE just as controlling during their days?" You have no more reason to believe that they were as controlling than I do that they were less. Actually, I couldn't find a statement where I mentioned comparative control at all. I mentioned that the "elders" would severely disapprove of SF's new directions.
Could it be that they were just like Kaare Smith? Sure. Could it be just as likely that they were not like KS? Of course. Given that we don't have much to go on except for where the group ended up to base a conclusion on, neither one is rationally more likely. We'd need more information to go beyond speculation and insinuation.
I'd love to provide some excerpts of Smith's and Aslaksen's writings except for one thing. KS and Sigurd J. Bratlie (the prior leader's son and arguably the brains behind the figurehead KS) control the SF publishing company, Skulte Skatters Forlag (Hidden Treasures Press). They are vigilant about copyright enforcement. Distributing copyrighted material is, in their case, to invite a law suit. I could quote passages, but not enough to allow you to get a feel for the writers. I haven't been on the Brunstad web site for a long time. I wonder if they offer the books for sale? I can't see that they do. They do have a tiny selection of the many tracts and booklets that they circulate inside SF at http://www.brunstad.org/en/Edification/Literature/. Of the four available, one is by JO Smith and one by Aslaksen.
Smith wasn't much interested in building a group or organization, as evidenced by the fact that he alienated pretty much the whole Christian community in his area. He was alone for many years. That's one reason there is now a book of his letters: more than half of them were written to his brother, one of the few who would communicate with him at the time. His express intent was to "lead individuals to The Head." I tend to take his private, personal letters to someone he trusted as being representative of his true thinking. He had a very different intent than KS and SJB have today, which is pretty transparent: $cha-ching$ !!
ahh... how nice! No more "URI too big" message!
No no totally haven't been bought off, all my anger I had towards them just wasn't worth it! I wasn't hurting them, I was coming off online as a crazy lady and hurting myself in general horrible to walk around with anger like that. Better to love to forgive, to make peace!
And the apostolic christian church of america, the women wear doilies on their heads for headcoverings when praying/prophesing as the bible says to. I been going to the apostolic christian church of america on and off for years now, I have family there. I've gotten so close to the people of my aunts/uncles church, and my beliefs so line up with theirs these days.........I'm apostolic christian for reals!
God's hand was in me going to the smith's friends church, it was all part of god's plan I believe.
That's my 10 cents : ) hahahahahah peace and love!
I have a bit more on my heart to say : ) I know I'm a potential entire "conundrum" I'm a complicated person aren't most of us? I really really do love the smith's friends, that's why the fact that the bulk of them minus 2 them right now, refusing to be my facebook friend or reply to my e-mails is painful for me. I'm having to accept ok this is how this people is.
Waring against them trying to bring them down isn't the way Hebrews 12:14 "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" All men, follow peace and holiness, whether that's the branch dividians, or whatever. I know this is a far out concept I'm trying to bring.
We ain't going to change them, and they ain't going to stop any their schenangians. But here's the thing they do love me, and I do love them. They really are just a people battling a bunch of evil spirits! A people to love! A people to pray for!
That's the rest of my 50 cents : )
Giving it to God and everyone:
I've wanted to respond to your posts, but have been at a loss. Since I was old enough to think about it, I've been interested in finding (and now developing) an understanding of life that empowers us individually. Your frequent changes of thought and loyalty have thrown me. There have been times when it seemed like you were asking for help or at least for feedback. I haven't known how to respond, so I haven't responded. But this morning something occurred to me that might be helpful. This is partly to you and partly me just doing my rambling thing, putting things as clearly and bluntly as I can hoping that people will knock me down and correct me if they can.
WARNING: this is my longest post to date, haha! Probably has more typos and grammatical errors than usual.
When we boil everything down to basics, the most important thing to any of us are the people we care about and that we want to care about us. As believers, we might want to say that the most important thing to us is God, but an honest, cursory look at our daily realities shows that this just isn't true. We cared about people long before we had any conception of God. We cared about people when we didn't care about God. And now that we do care about God, what is the focus of most or all of our interaction with God? Unless you are living on a mountaintop, I'll bet that most of a believer's prayers concern the people he cares about, whether he cares because they are important to him or because they are a threat to him. The things that we rejoice most about and weep most about revolve around other people. And I'll bet that even when we have rejoiced over our relationship with God--answered prayer, a miracle, a revelation, an influx of faith, a deep experience of communion--or have wept over it--our lack of faith, our weakness in temptation, our sinful tendencies, our sins themselves--that our joy or sorrow revolved around situations with another people, people who were important enough that we were moved to seek God, resulting in the experiences that we had.
I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with this state of affairs, although superficially it seems like "loving men rather than loving God." Like Jesus said, there are only two commandments that really matter: love God and love your neighbor. I think that anyone who thinks that those two loves can be separated enough to pit them against each other, i.e., loving God vs. loving man, doesn't understand either of them. They can't be separated. I learned this as we were raising a family. Caring for my boys took time away from reading the Bible, praying, and serving others. Was I neglecting God? HA! The question itself was based on a lack of understanding, as I began to realize. Loving my boys was where I found God, where God met me in a way like no other.
Jesus did warn about setting our minds on man's interests rather than God's. He called Peter "Satan" because of it. In other words, God's interests and man's interests are as opposed as good and evil are. It's clear that Jesus didn't mean man's interest in doing God's will, but rather man's corrupted, self-obsessed, anti-God, anti-life, anti-neighbor interests. This is how I think about it: in our fallen condition, if left completely to ourselves without God's help or influence, we would become devils. I think that human history bears this out forcefully, especially because the most heinous episodes have been caused by men who twisted God's word and will in order to empower the evil they committed in God's name. In which age or society have they NOT taught that the gods want blood?
tbc…
(…cont'd)
When I first began posting here, there were a few rounds which were especially interesting. I made comments about Christian belief and practice and applied them to Christians at large or to the majority of Christians. Instead of focusing on the beliefs and practices I commented about, some responders defended the people they thought I was commenting on. The discussion turned to whether or not my comments applied. It was as if the responders thought something like this, "I know people who hold those beliefs and follow those practices, and they are wonderful people. What he is saying about the origins and results of those beliefs and practices don't fit those people."
It's a bit of a quandary. Love the person but hate his sin. It's easy for one side to bleed over into the other. Enabling the addictive behavior of a loved one rather than risking our attachment to him/her is an example of our love bleeding over to soften our hatred for his/her destructive addiction. When self-righteous behavior alienates or even persecutes other human beings, hatred for sin has bled over to harden attitudes towards those people into something unloving.
When someone points out evil, it's easy to jump to the defense of people. This often happens with cult-like groups. When someone points out the harmful beliefs and practices of a group, defenders point out that there are many wonderful, godly people in the group. In other words, how can you condemn the group when it has good people who do good things? Maybe even the group itself does a lot of good.
There are a lot of good things about life in SF; it isn't all bad. If you are willing to stay within the parameters prescribed by "the brothers" it can be very good. It so happens that those parameters require you to be willing to violate your own conscience, but hey! Soldiers are faced with that all the time. Every soldier goes through an intensive brainwashing program called "boot camp." I'd love to hear anyone argue that the psychological conditioning required to turn human beings into expendable parts of a military machine is essentially different from cult indoctrination. Yet, we don't call the military a "cult" and some of us even think that having one is a good thing. Nothing is as neat and tidy as we'd like. If you've done any research on Jim Jones and his People's Temple, you know that many members were saved from terrible situations, addictions, and life styles. But the fact that Jones did them good didn't change what Jones and his group were about. Nor did the fact that Jones had evil intentions for his followers turn everyone involved into evil people. Some refused the Kool-aid. Even Mafia Dons go home and dearly love their wives and children, even after they just ordered someone killed. Evil is as evil does, and good likewise.
tbc…
(…cont'd)
Generally, we have a problem tolerating ambiguity. We don't like situations where good people do bad things, and we really don't like allowing that bad people often do good things. We prefer black and white, but reality just doesn't cooperate. When someone points out harmful beliefs and practices, we don't want to see people we care about go down the tubes along with those beliefs and practices, so we defend them both. If someone does something terrible, we tend to believe that he or she is a terrible person. It's all too simplistic and, frankly, too convenient. Looking at things as they really are requires us to think hard, look beneath appearances, and take risks of judgment. This was Jesus' primary point when he lambasted the Pharisees. He didn't argue that they were pretending to be clean. He admitted that they had cleaned up outside. They went to great lengths to clean up externally. Jesus faulted them because that's where they stopped. They should have gone further. The important cleansing is on the inside, where no one can see. What looks good is not necessarily good, and what looks bad is not necessarily bad, once you factor in what's going on out of sight: the thoughts and intentions of our hearts.
It isn't necessary to condemn a group and all the members in it to condemn its practices. It isn't necessary to accept those practices in order to accept and love the precious human beings who practice them. The important thing is intent. A student enamored of the SF view of things is not as responsible as the "leading brother" who regularly leverages privileged information he has about members of his "flock" in order to manipulate them. The student's intent might be to follow the truth, while the leader's intent is likely something far different. Trying to give leaders the benefit of some doubt by maintaining that they are somehow naive about the evil that they perpetrate is itself naive. Any "leader" who is that immature would not have become a leader. Leaders, good and evil, get where they are because they manage to gain power over other people, not because they are naively unaware of what they are doing. Jesus didn't give the Pharisees the benefit of the doubt. Neither did Ezekiel spare the elders of his day:
> 7 Then he brought me to the entrance to the court. I looked, and I saw a hole in the wall. 8 He said to me, “Son of man, now dig into the wall.” So I dug into the wall and saw a doorway there.
>
> 9 And he said to me, “Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here.” 10 So I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things and unclean animals and all the idols of Israel. 11 In front of them stood seventy elders of Israel, and Jaazaniah son of Shaphan was standing among them. Each had a censer in his hand, and a fragrant cloud of incense was rising.
>
> 12 He said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, ‘The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.’” 13 Again, he said, “You will see them doing things that are even more detestable.”
>
> Ezekiel 8:7-12
I believe that, in spite of how we'd like to mollify it, time and truth will reveal the abominations of those who have clawed, scraped, and back-stabbed to the top of their respective organizations, regardless of how holy they advertise themselves and their organizations to be.
tbc…
(…cont'd)
Here is the rule I go by: focus on behavior, not persons, and call a spade a spade. Then let people associate or disassociate as they will. They will make clear where they stand all on their own. Jesus didn't say that we will justify or condemn each other by our words, but that by our words we will justify or condemn ourselves.
If someone is abusing his partner or his child or his follower and we say, "That's abuse!" we'll see in short order whether or not he is an abusive person. Maybe he had a weak moment while under pressure or made a thoughtless mistake. If he loves his partner or his child or his follower, he will want nothing other than to get as far away from his abusive behavior as possible. If he has no faith that it's possible to get free from his abusive tendencies, he might defend himself. He might even lash out at you in anger because you have given him yet another painful reminder of how abusive he is. There is one thing that he won't do, however. He won't take deliberate steps to protect and strengthen his right and ability to continue abusing the person he should instead be loving. When a person tries to ensure that he can continue he abusive behavior, he is an abuser. That includes trying to get us to soften our assessment of his behavior so that he can continue it, no matter how "lovingly" he does this. He has condemned HIMSELF as an abuser by refusing to depart from his abuse. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil and depart from it, not find ways to continue it and get people to call it good. We didn't need to do anything but call a spade a spade as best we could.
What we say about the mental or spiritual state of other people is pretty insignificant. Maybe we're right or maybe we're wrong. What we say about their words and behavior is also pretty insignificant as far as it reflects on them. After all, only they know the truth about how right or wrong we are. But what we say about their words and behavior is supremely significant when it comes to ourselves. What we call good and what we call evil, what we practice or refuse to practice, what and whom we associate with or refuse to associate with, i.e., OUR words and behavior, and how all this jives or conflicts with what we know is true and what we intend to say and do, that is absolutely and eternally significant TO US. We don't love others by tolerating their evil; instead, we enable them. We don't love God by abusing evil people in order to get rid of their evil; instead, we dishonor God. It isn't necessary to become evil in order to stand against evil. On the other hand, we don't become evil simply because we take a stand against evil. That's something that evil people would like us and others to believe.
tbc…
(…cont'd)
"Like a trampled spring and a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." Proverbs 25:26
Some of us are so concerned about being called evil or judgmental or arrogant or whatever, that we just let evil go on around us. My nephew was mugged years ago when he was about 14 years old. He was waiting for the bus. There were other people waiting there, too. As he was being beaten by several guys older and larger than he was, he looked to the people at the bus stop for help. He saw some just watch him being beaten and some turn their heads away. No one helped. We can think, "That's awful!" Yet when we see wrongdoing of other sorts, how much does it take before we speak up, let alone intervene? I'm not talking about policing other people. I'm talking about honesty.
When we witness wrongdoing, we honestly believe that we witnessed something wrong. What do we do? Anything? Or do we say and do nothing? We don't need to threaten. We don't need to judge the character of the wrongdoer or predict doom and gloom. We don't even necessarily need to intervene, although my nephew and countless other victims of wrongdoing certainly wished that SOMEONE would have intervened. All we need to do is be a witness to the truth, to the best of our ability. That might require words or it might require modeling what we're talking about or it might require that we intervene. Sometimes we'll be wrong. So what else is new? Sometimes we'll be right. But that isn't even the point.
The real point is not whether the kingdom of heaven is "here" or "there" or whether we are "right" or "wrong" but that WE are in the spirit of that kingdom, honestly testifying to the truth. Being silent or passive when we should say or do something is hardly being honest. Even if we are wrong about what we see and hear, even if we are wrong about how we respond to it, our SPIRIT isn't wrong when we are after what is right. And as some have mentioned on this blog, this is a spiritual battle. It's amazing to see how quickly apparently powerful people back down from wrongdoing (or mount the artillery to blow you out of the water) when you simply state that what they are doing is wrong. What NEVER happens is that your words spoken in honesty have no effect. I've watched people back down completely, simply because someone spoke up, nothing more.
I think that we could ALL be more assertive about promoting goodness and opposing evil, myself included. We don't need to condemn people in order to take a stand against evil, HAHA! As if we had the power to condemn anything in the first place! We don't need to abuse people in order to take a stand against their evil. We just need to speak the truth and do good.
I agree with all you have to say milliard, I recently talked with the sister that brought me to the smith's friends church 8 billion years ago, and she told me I was doing really bad off spiritually when I was at her church and they all saw me "face to face" so they are weary of me. That it ain't all my fault cause of my mental illness (of which I'm on meds and doing good these days real good) but you know she was taking 0 blame and telling me a lot of it was my fault that I was the wrong party 100% basically.
So accordingly refusing to be my facebook friend and reply to my e-mails is completely holy in the smith's friends minds...........completely holy stuffs.............I guess cause I'm doing so badly spiritually or was last time they saw me "face to face" that I just am nothing to associate with (I'm trying to go on their train of thought here).
Well geez, I'm not going to their church, according to them themselves I was badly off spiritually there (that being 0 their fault and all my fault according to them this sister was clear to me that all the blame lay with me and 0 with them) I was badly off at their church!!!!!!!! I'm starting to like not want to be "spotted" by the world, not be watching the tv, not be loving the things of the world, much more now that I'm with the apostolic christian church of america.
Oh and at church today this verse stood out to me..........James 1:20 "For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." When I was like super super piping hot mad at the smith's friends ------------ I totally TOTALLY wasn't working the "righteousness of god" I'm 100% about that!
So ya I guess being against evil goings on isn't bad..........but that we go about it in the right way, not in wrath, not to get vengance. But shhhhhhhhhh this blog right is keeping people from joining the smith's friends.........but that's about all you all can hope for at this point (I know cause I'm in the inside track know) The smith's friends believe themselves to be THE body of christ on earth, they believe themselves to be something really really great - there's 0 talking them out of that! In their minds they are god's gift to the earth, they really believe they can do no wrong and are doing no wrong I believe. Somehow it is holy for them in their minds to refuse to reply to my e-mails, and refuse to be my facebook friend, that's holy stuffs in their minds! To them I'm the bad guy, I'm the one very very badly off there's 0 convincing them otherwise. To them you all are devils like me, you all in my company in their minds. They ain't going to listen to us! Shhhhhhhhh no, they going to keep about their "holy" buisiness.
admittedly though I am very weak and struggle not sure I made that clear enough. That's why the super hardcore on the narrow way churches is good for me, especially my aunt's/uncle's church cause man they really fear god at the apostolic christian church of america, I'm reminded every sunday to fear god and I need to be reminded of that. I have struggled to stay out of the cult cult cult for years, only the straight and narrow works for me......even rock n roll, you know that there are satanists out there that listen to the rock and roll to draw satan near them........if I ain't on the straight and narrow I find I go in a bad way FAST! 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" I can full out testify that satan indeed is waiting to snack on us! I'm doing all I can do right now, to not become a satan snack again!
the smith's friends are nice enough to my face though mostly. Supposedly they were supposed to get me new passwords etc. to their secret website, been a few weeks, guess I'll have my husband pester them.........cause right now I'm mostly locked out their church.....if you call their main phone line last time I checked it wasn't updated the service times since may of last year - YIKES. So you have to call the main macleay number and ask the phone secretary brother for the service time (and I suspect they are fully shutting somebody out of their church.......I am definately not fully shut out.......but you know most churches you can just go online and see their church times)
I still like to go to salem fellowship from time to time.......they talk about suffering in the flesh a lot and are big on having zeal and fire for that I like that! Need prayer that I not go completely nuts with the electric guitar I'm getting tonight (I am a skilled musician happens to be, I play the flute, the violin, djembe drums) also I was a poet for several years, also for few years I composed many classical songs (haven't like copyrighted or sold any them, their just in special music note style notepads somewhere in the mess that is my garage : ) need prayer that I keep it all righteous......I think pop songs are ok, done right, gotta keep it all righteous! (I'm pry going to spew out stuffs in the vein of alanis morisette, and pat benetar - righteously though : ) Hope you alls week is going good!
Millard: Very good posting. I like very much what you wrote. I have spoken many times on this blog about focusing on the behavior and speaking the truth. I do hope that I come across that way.
One of the things I want to comment about is what you said related to military boot camp psychology. I have read several references on the parallels of boot camps and cults and I agree that the military uses some of the same thought reform techniques as cults to achieve their goals. I believe this is done in order to build a unified military unit, and is necessary for the protection and safety of the unit in the midst of military combat.
Here is the big difference. First, in the military there is no hidden agenda. You know when you sign up that you will be sent to boot camp and could be assigned to fight overseas. That is very clear. Yes, there is a chain of command and a “need to know” policy for maintaining intelligence, but the overall objectives are known to everyone.
In cults, the true agenda is hidden from the membership, or at least the new recruits. Only after joining the group and proving that you are committed do you get to go ‘further’ and become more ‘holy’. The network of lies, half-truths, and deceptions is so twisted that no one knows anything for sure.
Second, the military does not isolate you psychologically from your friends and family or other military members. There are requirements for moving and training that keep you away from family but the military does not try to keep you from maintaining a relationship with your family. In fact, I have friends whose children were REQUIRED to write letters home during boot camp. They go out of their way to make sure your family can contact you and send you letters and care packages even in far off places like Afghanistan. They try hard to keep you and your family connected.
Cults work very hard to disconnect people from other family and friends. Most former cult members talk about the fact that they were forbidden to talk with their family and even discouraged from talking openly with other cult members. Through fear and intimidation they were afraid to talk openly with anyone inside or outside the group.
Even though there are some similarities with cults, in my opinion, the military cannot be categorized as a cult. I don’t believe that was your intent but I just wanted to add my comments on that subject.
Your comments about “right” or “wrong” and truth were timely. I had just come from a sermon centered on the scripture in James 3: 13-18 where James talks about Godly wisdom.
“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.”James 3:13-16
In verse 13 James presents the idea that humility comes from wisdom. Those that are thought to be very wise are often held up on a pedestal and praised. James turns that upside down with the idea that Godly wisdom leads to humility. The kind of good deeds done in humility are probably not noticed, or at least not advertised by those doing them.
If some stand in a church service and publicly thank God for how righteous they are and how they have gained “victory over sin” in their lives, are they not boasting before men. James says “Such ‘wisdom’ does not come from heaven…”.
I like the contrast that James uses in verses 17 & 18 for Godly wisdom.
“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.” James 3:17,18
James describes Godly wisdom as pure. I’m not sure in what context he uses the word ‘pure’ but a clue may be in chapter 1 where he says “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” I think that maybe he is describing a wisdom that is simple and uncomplicated like Mother Teresa. She did not seek out the favor of the world but lead a simple life helping others.
Peace-loving is another concept that can be contrary to a society that tends to sue others for personal gain. Everybody seems to be anxious to take their neighbor to court because their dog barks or they don’t like the way they park their car.
Considerate and submissive are two words that can be twisted by religious leaders. Cults will take this verse and say “the Bible says you should submit!!” In their context the membership should submit to the leadership in the church. I believe the biblical context has more to do with idea that leaders are submissive and considerate to those in their care. Some leaders have the idea that the membership exists to serve them. I believe that good leaders care for and, in a sense, serve the membership. They enable and encourage those under them instead of hovering and controlling them. Jesus himself was the ultimate example of this and tried to instill this in His disciples when He washed their feet. Here was the only begotten Son of God humbling Himself to serve His disciples and wash their feet.
I took off on leadership but being considerate and submissive to your neighbors is another concept. This SF leader certainly was not considerate of this girl or her family when he coerced her into living in his home and submitting to “church work”. Her church work consisted of being a nanny for his children. He wasn’t considerate of her life as a college student. Instead of living on campus and making her own friends she spent most of her free time in his home, (a.k.a the curch), with him and his family. It is obvious that his idea of submission was for her to serve him and his family. That is not the kind of submission that James is talking about.
Good fruit… we have covered that one at length earlier on the blog.
Impartial. Here’s a good one. Several members of this SF church have had the opportunity to talk about this girl’s parents to people who actually know the parents. Some of the adjectives used were “psychopaths” and “dysfunctional”. Some of the people who made those comments had never met the girl’s parents so they had no firsthand knowledge from which to speak. These are not only unkind words but most people who know the parents would say that those are untrue.
I think if I was to remain “impartial”, I would at least refrain from making those kinds of statements about somebody I had no firsthand knowledge of. If this “church” was really interested in being impartial and they somehow thought that the parents were that bad, shouldn’t they at least talk to the parents to see if there was any validity to these statements?
I think we all know that this “church” is not interested in connecting the girl with her family. They have tried hard to spread these lies in order to serve their own twisted agenda, and it has nothing to do with differences in religion, or becoming more Christ like. If fact it is contrary to the teachings of the very Jesus they so zealously ‘claim’ to follow.
This brings me to the word ‘sincere’. A sincere man does not lie to a co-worker saying that this girl is his wife’s cousin and that is why she is living in his home. A sincere man does not lie to his co-worker saying that the girl’s father gave him a black eye at the wedding. Sincere people do not spread lies about other people in order to justify their own deviant behavior.
You are right Millard. Being a Christian is pretty simple; “speak the truth and do good.” Unfortunately that is too hard for some people.
Ok, I’m done preaching for now.
so I've been sending messages like diahrea to one the leaders of salem fellowship the smith's friends church near me.........and like 15 e-mails later he finally replied, said he didn't know what all the e-mails were about (testing him seeing how many e-mails it'd be before he replied) he told me he only replies to a few close friends and family in e-mails. I give up : )
I'm doing good though, today at my aunt's apostolic christian church, I really felt the love......and there services have always been really good for me to hear........I battle pride, I battle not fearing god enough.......they always cover my big issue items. It's hard for me to let a new church in like this (I mean into my heart) but this is part of the healing process, and like you all on this blog are some I don't upright sorts........there's good people in this world........the smith's friends are a cult, that wasn't the norm - or least I hope - YIKES!
I'd hope that most christians would want to have a heart for me that's what I'd hope.
I'm a really fortunate person, god has truelly blessed me.......I feel sorry for the smith's friends, I really have empathy for them these days, one them told me it was horrible walking around hating people all the time like that and that does have to be miserable! (to be viewing pretty much entire earth outside them as harlot.........@#$#@%) Much better instead to love the sinners......jesus wouldn't want any us to judge them and shun them out I know jesus he ain't about that stuffs! He wants the sinner, he came for the sinners! That he could bring them to repentance! And save their souls!
But anyways it's gotta be miserable to be a smith's friend, it really does. If anything just miserable to have it in your heart that way for people outside the church.
I like to love people, that's what I enjoy.........I'm not happy with myself when I ain't loving people......when I get judgy. Do unto others as you'd want do'd unto you, and I'd want people to love me for sure!
for sure!
Hope your alls week is going good.
Same brother that I've been pestering I'm going to yikes send how many e-mails it takes, to how many of this cult it takes, to get at the truth...........who freakin told everybody in this cult to completely shun me (and it totally happened, these people have for a long time refused to reply to e-mails etc.)..........and what is this cults secret hidden beliefs, I believe they exist! There's 0% way that they are actually living heeding what they preach.
In that I wasn't saved in their church is proof enough that they aren't living what they preach for the bible says.......1 Timothy 4:16
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
Obviously this cult is in a dark hole from hell.........and clearly in this dark hole from hell they do not want to reply to none my e-mails - being that they love darkness, this is dark of them to shut me out like this! All this shunning me and shutting me out isn't the result of all their irradiating glory from heaven above! Not good fruit either!
15 e-mails before I get a reply is not what easy to intreat looks like!!!!!!!!!! James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy."
Praying praying praying you all can't stop me, that god please please please do away with this cult that has caused me a lot of pain.
The smith's friends can paint their pretty picture of themselves all they want on www.brunstad.org --------- the grass ain't green on that there smith's friends side of the street!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm locking myself into my aunts church.......cause I figured out how : ) And it ain't my job to save my soul! IT AIN'T!
The bah bah bah bahing mother..............sheep comes walking into your church it's you's job to save said mother..............Ezekiel 34:8
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;"
That's the deal, I bah, shepards save my soul! I sit in the field and bah, and it is the shepards job to talk me out of all the 100 million nut things this crossed eyed sheep cracks in it's bahing ever loving head to do!
NOT MY JOB! BAH! bah bah bah bah bah ya this sheep in the sheepfold stuffs is working out for me : )
that's my last post for awhile I know you all is relieved hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahah
Harold: I agree that there are differences between cults and the military. Cults don't usually drop bombs, although some strap them to their chests and blow people up. The similarities I mentioned had to do with mental conditioning. Cults and military are similar in that they seek to condition people to act against instincts that we normally consider to be healthy, e.g., self-preservation (military) and family attachments (cult). The fact that they choose different instincts to go after doesn't mean that they don't go after them.
I'll push the point a little farther, just for fun. You said that in the military there is no hidden agenda. Sorry, historical evidence doesn't support you on that one. I'd argue the reverse is closer to the truth. What became the big question among our troops in Viet Nam? "Why the hell are we here?" What is the question among many of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? "Why the hell are we here?" The public hears what will generate support for military agendas. Any connections between the propaganda and the military's true agendas are coincidental. Those who know the difference are given STRONG disincentives so that they don't reveal the difference. More often than not, the true agendas of governments and militarys (and churches) are wildly different than their advertising and progaganda.
You mentioned that the military doesn't try to isolate you from friends or family. Sorry, that's exactly what they do in boot camp. They encourage letter writing to prevent break-downs, not to preserve family relations. After all, they are readying soldiers for the ultimate isolation that they euphemistically call a "sacrifice." The practices you cited don't prove the opposite, they just prove that the military doesn't need to resort to lesser tactics, having harsher ones at their disposal. They have things like guns that shoot deserters and court martials that convict them of treason if they divulge information to their friends or family (or Wikileaks, as the case may be.) When you're clear about the penalties for crossing the line, you don't need to be removed from temptation. The flip side to this is that the "cult" practice of detaching people from their prior relationships is evidence of the WEAKNESS of a cultish group. If they had stronger methods to secure devotion, e.g., truth and real power, they wouldn't need to resort to tactics.
But I don't think this hits nail on the head, any of it. I think that the real question is: What happens when someone acts contrary to the agenda? The military redacts those letters home. If they suspected that a letter was inappropriate, intended to divulge illicit information, they certainly would "isolate" the person who wrote it. If it comes down to a choice between family relationships and "duty" or "national security," which side does the military promote? Always, vigorously, and with nary an exception, we know the answer.
Narcissists, whether they are individuals or groups, are always exemplary when things are going their way. That's what makes them attactive. What gives them away are the things that they do around dealing with dissent, opposition, contradiction, etc. Part of their abuse comes through their efforts to preclude opposition and disagreement and secure the opposite, devotion. The rest comes through their reactions to actual opposition and disagreement and perceived lack of devotion.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
My point wasn't to skewer the military, (although it is fun to do,) it's that there are many recognized, accepted organizations today that behave in very cult-like ways, but we partition them out of the question. By making a "cult" category and fitting it to fringe organizations, we allow many mainstream and very cult-like organizations to go on as if they were something other than cultish. My favorite example of this is the Catholic Church.
Fraternal organizations are another example, from frat and sorority houses to the Elks and Masons. The primary reason for their existence is to promote devotion to the organization and further its existence. I think that particular characteristic is key. When a person or a group crosses the line from existing in order to produce benefit to others over to existing in order to further their existence, motivations come into play that result in many, if not most, of the behaviors that we associate with "cults." They are roughly the same behaviors we associate with narcissists. Of course, if they didn't offer any benefit (or perceived benefit) to others or society, they probably wouldn't exist for long. The fact that a person or group benefits others does not necessarily mean that benefitting others is their primary motivation. We have whole theories about how selfish motivations are the basis for apparent altruism on a personal level. How would groups be somehow more noble? They aren't.
The "cult" category implies that good people and good groups are basically different than "cults" or "cult personalities." I got that impression from a couple of your questions about J O Smith and Aslaksen. It was as if you were looking for the seeds of SF cultishness to go all the way back. I believe that some probably do. I also believe that some that go all the way back were unhealthy and that others were actually healthy. Here comes more pushing the point...
Can you imagine being a bystander watching Jesus and the disciples? I went through Lalich & Langone's "Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups" at http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_checklis.htm and checked off the ones that clearly applied to Jesus and his disciples. I checked 9 of 15 as "definitely," and there were 3 more that I thought were "somewhat." That only left 3 that clearly didn't apply to them, to my mind of course. Check it out and see what you come up with. L & L's list definitely applies to the groups that we already think are cults, but it doesn't apply to them exclusively. If even just half of those characteristics applied to Jesus, how could it be a bad thing if the same ones applied to someone else, even J O Smith?
The reality is, in my experience, that cult-like behavior can arise in people and groups that were formerly healthy. Young people want to make the world a different place. Old people often end up living just to live a bit longer and protect their assets. Organizations have life cycles, too. Young organizations are usually very in touch with their missions. If they started out solely to make their owners rich, cult-like behavior isn't far behind. No one is going to support their agenda without something in return, so they have to engage in propaganda/advertising to get people to believe that giving them money is a GOOD thing.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Instead, let's consider a humanitarian organization and a good one. It does so well and gets so much support, it grows. It grows so large that more and more if its people become removed from its original mission. The vision of "the founders" becomes an old story, and their little niches in the organizational machine might have nothing directly to do with delivering benefit. The vision eventually stops being their reason for being. This is what normally happens in organizations. There are entire branches of management science devoted to finding ways to prevent it from happening. The buzz word last decade was "reinvent the organization." Why? We don't reinvent things that are vital and pertinent.
A little corporate humor:
Joe: Why do we have this meeting?
Larry: To put information together for the boss.
Joe: Hey, Boss, why do you need that information?
Boss: How else would I know what went on in the meeting?
I attended more than one standing meeting in corporate America that had been going on for so long that no one in the meeting knew why it was being held, and believe me there were no reasons that were obvious. That's just a small example of what happens when we lose touch with a valid "reason for being" as the French call it (raison d'être). When our reason for being becomes primarily to continue being, we start getting cultish. Hmmm... sounds a lot like patriotism, doesn't it?
Like I said, pushing the point. Maybe it seems like pushing buttons. I absolutely believe that the characteristics of cultishness can be found anywhere and everywhere. I admit that I chose some of my examples intentionally to push hot buttons, so I hope no one gets too offended. I like to push buttons for two reasons:
1. It makes it very obvious who has thought a matter through. Those who have thought it through respond with their thoughts. Those who haven't thought it through respond emotionally.
2. I sincerely believe that our worst problems are the results of blindness, not intention. Anyone who is willing to open his eyes and look for the truth will find it and, according to Jesus, be set free as a result. Those who prefer to cling to their blindness rather than admit that they are blind will remain blind and bear the responsibility for refusing to open their eyes.
When we are blind, we have no rational reasons to defend our blindness. We can't see, so how could we find any? We resort to what we have left: we get emotional. If we all agree not to push each other's buttons, (and we have strong norms aimed at getting us to agree to exactly that, e.g., political correctness, politeness, so-called respect, etc.,) we can all go merrily, blindly along while pretending that we can all see.
I don't think that's a good idea. I don't mind offending people if the end result is that they open their eyes. And it works vice-versa. I'm just as blind as the next guy. God bless the man who kicks me in the shins before I walk off a cliff or in the ass when I refuse to get out of the road.
milliard, just letting you know the smith's friends might've replied to your last post but not here........on facebook they said......."A theoretical message doesn’t grip an upright heart." If you get to theoretical they'll just ignore you, they believe they are the holiest things on the earth, they ain't into highly intellectual conversation (that would kill their cult! the idea is to just think about what brother kare says, and the leaders of the cult and not listen to all you mukety mukety philosopical types - I respect you philosophical intelligientedness but just sayin they don't! I'm not the brightest bulb in the batch but am reading a lot more these days on my anti the tv athon and think it'll help me better I be gaining a few braincells then waisting them awah in front the tv on a stupid be friend with the world athon of stupidity) http://www.facebook.com/waltz21?ref=profile#!/BrunstadChristianChurch
Just didn't want you all to feel ignored. Well still shut out from the smith's friends, pretty well complelety these days, smith's friend brother that used to comment on here (I doubt he's a smith's friend anymore) I feel bad for him, this cult will just let us weaklings die I've been left to die by them! They could've been my facebook friend and accepted my facebook friend requests - THEY DIDN'T they left me to DIE! elf_asura I'm friends with him, have been for a long time, I really believe this cult has left him to die! I'm not blaming him at all for the horrible content of his blog..........I'm fully blaming the smith's friends cause they've pry completely shut him out too! It's not holy to shut us weaklings out, that ain't gods will! http://elfasura.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/visual-poem/
I'll confess though I'm a burdensome person 1 Thessalonians 2:6 "Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ." Heavy, heavy always, even when I'm doing good (though smith's friends I swear think I'm doing bad even when I'm doing good - I'm buffeted I can't get rid of my buffet! I'm fully up against a WALL) I'm extremely burdensome, I'll write one the 3 smith's friends that are actually my facebook friends, arnold fourie I still write him am friends with him, long long long long burdensome ridiculous e-mails. But I'm a weakling that's how it is! And I need help, I need a lot of help, from a lot of the entire body of christ. This is just how I am ---------- burdensome.
But don't cha want me saved anyways? I think I'm one to love and hold up. Thank god some you are holding me up, I really do feel bad for brother avy, I fear he is all alone out there.
Giving it to God: How might I find the comment you mentioned? Could you post a link? The Brunstad Conference Center page on FB is all in Norwegian, so I assume the comment is somewhere else. Thanks for mentioning it. You aren't burdensome, by the way. :)
GITG: Never mind, I just found it on "Brunstad Christian Church". What made you think that comment might refer to my posts here?
lets just say I know them really well (wish I didn't though) they really believe they are the @#$#@% of the earth. They don't kinda a little sorta believe they are the body of christ they really believe it, for them even to reply to any of us pieces of #@%$#@ is not even something they would hardly conder in their high elevated with christ position of lofty holiness up jesus's........ Don't you all know we are supposed to be going to their churches so we can get saved. And we're all supposed to be kissing their........only time they reply to me anymore is when I'm wipping their............w/the good charmin tp.
They need be worshiped SURRENDER they are GODS! especial emphasis on the word "gods" in this verse Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Humble people's reply.........god's they do not bother with us pieces of...............and the smith's friends are GODS! And we all must bow down and WORSHIP THEM! And if you do wipe their butts with the good tp, I promise you they will reply. THE GOOD TP DANG IT! (e-mailing yet another smith's friends, nope no luck so far, e-mails e-mails e-mails, have luck every now and then when I kiss their butts just right)
though we supposed to love them, that's my whole pain thing I love them they pushing me away constantly and so I am in pain. We've all pushed somebody away in the past though we've all done it sometime or another........I recommend loving the nerd, loving the undesireables - god surely didn't wish for this pain upon me.
I'm clean afraid at my aunts apostolic christian church, post the smith's friends, it's affected how I am around everybody, I'm always fearing being locked out again..........being someday entirelly locked out by everybody and all alone that is my gripping fear they really think they aren't wronging me, that not being my facebook friend, not replying to my e-mails is perfectly ok, they really think it's ok!
There's 0 convincing these people otherwise..........they are going to hurt people and hurt people and hurt people until our cries go up to heaven so loudly.
The smith's friends, have messed up in putting people on pedastles and gloring in them. And gloring in each other in my view, and how am I supposed to view their locking me out of their church and refusing to reply to most my e-mails in that they believe themselves to be gods way above me? I disagree with their gloring! My bible says that all things are mine all men!!!!!!!!!!...........
1 Corinthians 3:20-22 (King James Version)
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
Millard: What happened to your nephew is very sad. Being assaulted or attacked is bad enough, but to have other people stand around watching and not attempt to help really adds to the disgust and atrocity that it is. And, I agree with Harold, your March 6 post was very good.
“Like Jesus said, there are only two commandments that really matter: love God and love your neighbor. I think that anyone who thinks that those two loves can be separated enough to pit them against each other, i.e., loving God vs. loving man, doesn't understand either of them. They can't be separated.”
ONE of the ways we show love for God is by the way we treat other people that He created and loves. God created all people and loves every one of them. It goes without saying that He doesn’t love the sin that all of us commit, but He still loves each of us. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” So, when we read passages throughout the Scriptures like ‘love your neighbor’, ‘love one another’, ‘love your enemies’, ‘walk in love’, etc., the whole message seems clear that God wants us to treat others with love, respect, encouragement, unselfishness, mercy, forgiveness, honesty, truth, kindness, patience, goodness, and honor. Those are all ways to demonstrate love to others. Jesus says, “If you love Me, you will obey Me.” That obedience includes our instructions to ‘love others’. By obeying God’s command for us to love others, we are exhibiting the love, honor, and respect we have for God which brings Him glory.
Just as true is the opposite. When one shows hatred toward others by lying to and about them, threatening, assaulting, quarreling, fighting, making false accusations, turning one’s back on others, turning against others because they attend a different ‘church’, being divisive with words and behaviors, being selfish, and disrespectful, shows hate, disobedience, disregard, and dishonor to God, the same God that we claim so zealously to love. It appears God doesn’t want empty words as much as He wants our obedience, our hearts, our actions, and our love.
James 3:8-9, “But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”
Curse: to swear at, endow to one’s detriment, afflict, harass
Has Smith’s Friends/Brunstad Church demonstrated love for those outside their group? Did they show love to this girl’s family when they moved her into their home and separated her from her own family? Was this girl’s family shown love when they were assaulted at their own daughter’s wedding? And what about Giving It to God, have they shown love to her and her daughter?
Jesus used parables to teach. When an ‘expert in the law’ asked Him how to inherit eternal life, Jesus, answered him with a question, “What is written in the law?” In this exchange, this expert responded, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus answered, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.” Then the man asked, “Who is my neighbor?” To answer this, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10). At the conclusion of His teaching, Jesus asked, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian Ministry started by Billy Graham’s son. It sends aid to those who are in need of food, clothing, and shelter when they are struck by a disaster such as this latest tsunami in Japan. Is Franklin Graham using this ministry to get people to join and grow his church or is it because that’s what Jesus did and said, “Go and do likewise”?
Mr. Graham most likely never knows individually who this ministry has fed or provided clothing or shelter for. Most likely those who are helped don’t join his church or send him money later for any services provided. They didn’t have to work in order to receive the help. It is a gift from unselfish Christians who love others and want to help with no strings attached. It could actually mean the difference between life and death for the recipients of such humanitarian help.
I believe this is the type of unselfish love that Jesus was referring to when He told the parable of the Good Samaritan, doing something for someone else with no expectations in return. That is Christianity in action – demonstrating real love to real people.
“I learned this as we were raising a family. Caring for my boys took time away from reading the Bible, praying, and serving others. Was I neglecting God? HA! The question itself was based on a lack of understanding, as I began to realize. Loving my boys was where I found God, where God met me in a way like no other.”
I believe the relationships that we have with our own children help us better understand the relationship that God has with us. Most people would say they love their own children so much that they will sacrifice resources such as time, energy, money to do anything possible to help their children, want what is best for them (for Christians that would includes not living and participating in sin), want to see our children having positive, close relationships with their siblings, and want to spend time and experiences with them. From what we read in scripture, we see that God loves us much in this same way. He loved us so much that He sacrificed for us, wants what is best for us (which includes not living and participating in sin), wants to see us having close, positive relationships with ALL His children and wants us to spend time with Him by reading His Word, talking with Him. There are different ways that love can be demonstrated, but loving others usually requires a sacrifice of some type of resources-time, finances, energy. True love is more than words-it is an action.
When our children disobey us, it doesn’t mean we no longer love them or they are no longer our children. We still love them and they are still our children, but they disobeyed us. Just as we don’t stop loving or disown our children when they disobey us, God doesn’t stop loving or disown us, His children, because we disobey Him (sin). Although our children sometimes act in ways (sin) that hurt themselves, others, or us, we still love them and claim them as our child. Although we sometimes hurt others, ourselves and/or God (when we sin), He still loves us and claims us as His children (if we have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior and believe that He is who He said He is and we repent). Does He want us to continue sinning?
Romans 6:1, “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” 6:11-14, “In the same way, count yourselves DEAD TO SIN but ALIVE TO GOD IN CHRIST JESUS. Therefore do not let sin REIGN (govern, rule) in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”
So, I understand your statement ‘loving (my) boys was where (I) found God’. Having children SHOULD help us get a picture and better understand the unconditional love that God has for us. Just as our children don’t have to ‘work’ to ‘earn’ the love that we have for them, we don’t have to ‘work’ to ‘earn’ God’s love.
“There are a lot of good things about life in SF; it isn't all bad. If you are willing to stay within the parameters prescribed by "the brothers" it can be very good. It so happens that those parameters require you to be willing to violate your own conscience, but hey!”
It appears that SF has had some changes in recent years. Among other things some ‘parameters’ in the past have been abstaining from television and certain types of clothing and physical appearances. Today some of those parameters seem to have changed. But, parameters are still there in other areas such as when, where, with whom, and how long one is able to spend time, and activities in which they can participate. Sometimes those parameters are silent and put into place by fear tactics, hate, lies, ‘pregnant pauses, raised eyebrows’ and manipulative tactics which keeps one within the prescribed parameters set forth by the church leaders. One parameter that may require one to violate his/her conscience is lying. Most people know that lying violates God, but in such closed groups, protecting the leader and the agenda of the church comes first, so if it takes lying to do that, they so be it.
Why do some people have a desire to or even believe they have the right to put parameters around others? There is nothing wrong with not watching television or dressing modestly. But when one is influenced to make choices so they fit in or because that’s what the church leaders want them to do, then ‘the church’ has overstepped its boundaries. God gives each individual a brain to make his/her own decisions without undue influences and/or persuasion from another person. Decisions should be between an individual and God who speaks to us through His Word-not through another person who has misinterpreted, put his/her own spin on it, adds to it, and use it for his/her purposes. There is nothing wrong with reading other materials written by Christian authors. But, when one reads only materials written by those who have been taught by the same people/person or read those materials instead of the Bible, then influence by someone other than God is taking place.
“If you've done any research on Jim Jones and his People's Temple, you know that many members were saved from terrible situations, addictions, and life styles. But the fact that Jones did them good didn't change what Jones and his group were about. Nor did the fact that Jones had evil intentions for his followers turn everyone involved into evil people. Some refused the Kool-aid.”
But most didn’t refuse the Kool-aid. Why? Because they put their faith, hope, and trust in a church leader and followed Him rather than in following and serving God. So over 900 deceived people ultimately lost their lives and many more lost loved ones that fatal day. In the early days, many members may have been saved from terrible situations, addictions, and lifestyles. Jim Jones seemed to have pure intentions for preaching the good news of Jesus and unifying people from differing socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic backgrounds, but was it because Jim Jones unselfishly loved these people so much he was willing to sacrifice of himself in order to help them? Or is it because he wanted to build his utopia? At the start, it appeared he had good intentions and a good reputation of helping people. Over time, he began to separate his followers from their family and friends on the outside by making up lies, getting his followers to doubt, fear, isolate themselves, and hate those who weren’t part of his group. The Peoples’ Temple was described by its members as a church that was ‘alive’. But 24 hours later all these people who were so zealously ‘alive’ were all dead.
“I believe that, in spite of how we'd like to mollify it, time and truth will reveal the abominations of those who have clawed, scraped, and back-stabbed to the top of their respective organizations, regardless of how holy they advertise themselves and their organizations to be.”
Turning loved ones against each other is part of that clawing, scraping, and back-stabbing in an effort to get what one wants. They don’t care about other people and what is good for anyone besides themselves. They can advertise themselves as holier or more righteous Christians, but their actions speak much louder than their advertisements.
Giving it to god: I agree with Millard. You seem to have waffled a bit in your beliefs, what you’ve been taught, and where you stand. I’d like to make a point that I think is very important. Yes, we may be able to have victory over a particular sin (or even many sins). That process of becoming more Christ-like is called sanctification. Let’s take the sin of threatening people as an example. Let’s assume one has a habit of making threats to others. When God convicts us that threatening is a sin, we can make a conscientious effort to be obedient, repent, and never threaten people again. If we do that, then we have victory over the sin of threatening others. As God reveals and convicts us of each of our sins, we have conscientious choices to make, to disobey and continue in that sin, or to obey, repent (turn away from), make it right with those we sinned against, and no longer be tempted to give in to that sin.
Smith’s Friends doctrine teaches that one can have ‘victory over sin’. But what does that really mean? And, how is that any different from what ‘mainstream’ churches teach? Those in SF have been taught and seem to believe that those not in their church and under their teaching believes in ‘greasy grace’ in which we can intentionally continue sinning just because we have grace. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Most of the mainstream churches that I’ve attended throughout my life teach that we are justified by grace and that sanctification is the process by which we become more Christ-like as the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins and we are obedient and repent. But, can we actually have victory over EVERY sin to the point of that person becoming perfect like Jesus while still here on the earth? That teaching does not line up with scripture.
As long as we are living in our mortal bodies, we will continue to have thoughts, actions, and behaviors that do not line up with God’s holiness and bring glory to Him. Those are sins. There is no way that we will do away with every sin in ALL of our thoughts, actions, and behaviors. If one becomes impatient, irritated, annoyed, lustful, jealous (sins that only in one’s thoughts and can be hidden from the view of man) that is still sin. When we become prideful, compare ourselves to others, degrade, belittle, make fun of others, put them down, say even one unkind thing or have one unkind thought about someone, then we’re sinning. If anyone says that they never do any of these things and have complete victory over sin, they make God out to be a liar.
“I feel sorry for the smith's friends, I really have empathy for them these days, one them told me it was horrible walking around hating people all the time like that and that does have to be miserable! (to be viewing pretty much entire earth outside them as harlot........”
Since I didn’t witness this, I’m merely going on what you wrote, but I wanted to make a comment that I believe pertains to this. James 4:4 says, “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God.”
There are many ‘groups’ of people who are taught and believe that in order to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, they need to isolate and/or hate everyone outside their group which they consider to be ‘The Bride of Christ’. Isolation can be emotional as well as physical. They use verses like James 4:4 to justify not being friends with anyone outside their group in order to be righteous.
The Peoples’ Temple, Mormon groups, and Westboro ‘Baptist’ Church are good examples of this.
What people in these types of groups forget is the example that Jesus Christ set for us; He associated with sinners; He loved them; He served them; He healed them; He listened to them; He talked to them; He forgave them. He didn’t isolate Himself from ‘the world’; He interacted with ‘the world’. I believe what James meant in 4:4 when he said ‘friendship with the world’ is knowingly, willfully, and intimately participating in sinful acts that ‘the world’ (sinners-all people) participate in. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t associate with people who sin; because all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. But, we aren’t to intimately participate in and practice sin, no matter who we’re with. That’s one of the fruits of the Spirit - having SELF-control, not someone else controlling and manipulating situations, surroundings, activities, where one lives in order to save you from yourself or achieve a desired outcome.
Do those who belong to SF never sin? They claim victory over sin, but do they really have it? Do they NEVER lie, steal, threaten, curse, have an irritated, annoyed, impatient thought, assault, have pride, cause division, commit adultery, make untrue and unkind remarks about others, consider their own wants, needs, and desires over others? Sin separates us from God. We are to stop sinning, but because we are human, we will sin, even if only in our thoughts. God doesn’t want us to continue sinning, but He knows we are fallible-that’s the reason for the gift of Jesus Christ- grace and mercy. He knows that no matter how much we attempt in our limited human condition to stop sinning, we can’t do it on our own. When we become a Christian, the Holy Spirit moves in and takes up residence to convict us and help us not to sin.
1 Timothy 1:15, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His unlimited patience as an example of those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.”
You’re right it must be miserable hating people all the time. I also think it must grieve a loving God to see those who claim to love Him so much hating others.
So as this whole blog has revealed, there are different beliefs here. Some believe Jesus was just merely a man and not God in the flesh and that complete victory over sin because Jesus did it so it is possible for us to attain perfection on this earth, too. OR the belief that Jesus was born of God to a virgin by the Holy Spirit, coming down in the likeness (in the form) of man as a sacrifice (God gave Him up for our sin) and propitiation to redeem (to buy back) all sinners who believe that He is who He said He was (“I and the Father are one.”) from the evil one.
But, no matter which of these two beliefs one adheres to, it SHOULD be apparent from the whole of scripture that there is one unified message throughout the Bible; God is a God of love, not hate. And, no matter what one believes about Jesus, whether one believes they need Jesus as a propitiation for their sins because they can never be good enough or perfect enough to get to heaven on their own or whether they think they can become just like Him to be good enough to get to heaven, the fact remains that Jesus loves people, ALL people. He even loved and associated with sinners. So, if Jesus loved, shouldn’t we too? Isn’t that what CHRISTianity is?
Interesting. Twice my post was confirmed "saved" but didn't appear. When I removed a couple of links, it appeared just fine. Does this blog prohibit URLs in posts?
Keith: Are you there?
The blog is dropping posts again. This happened a year or so ago. Could you work your magic and get them restored? My last post showed yesterday (once I removed the u-tube link) but now it's gone again. RssnSpy6 posted yesterday and his post is gone, too.
Thanks!
Just a thought...
Maybe this is what happens when we get so many posts that the blog needs to create a new page? It seems to me that half the posts we lost a year ago ended up on a new page once they were restored.
haha, lets' see if I can spill it over to a new page.
Testing 1...
testing 2...
testing 3...
testing 4...
Nope? Well, let's see if those disappear too. Too bad. RssnSpy6 got me going. Don't want to post when his disappeared, though! Patience was never my strong point. ;)
I still don't view mainstream christianity, as like hardcore on the narrow way, most mainstream churches you can wear jewelry, you can wear makeup, watch tv sure! Mainstream christianity just seems like caos to me! Some you maybe are following jesus but it just such caos mainstream christianity is! I need to DIE, I need to not dink around, not die a little bit save a bit of flesh to die later! Hebrews 12:4 "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." It needs to be painful like this, and thourough, and when I'm done I will have overcame 1 Peter 4:1
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" it doesn't say I'll keep on sinning, NO. DEAD WITH JESUS in dead land.........Colossians 3:3 "For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God." Then I'm a overcomer if I can get there and stay there. A full victory can be mine! (is there still sin in my flesh?????????? if there is I will crush it "resisted unto blood, striving against sin" so it never has any more place in my life ever again!) I'm not convinced of mainstream christianities sold outedness for jesus. I'm just not convinced. Stop wearing makeup, stop watching tv, I'll consider it....friendship with the world with that tv box is enmity with god!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gotta be in sold out for jesus extra dead land if ya wanta be saved! NO TV! shoot the tv! Take a sledghammer to your tv's!
If the "news" is so important, buy a newspaper subscription earth! KILL THE TV!
my last blog post YIKES Bestest I die and get it over with! (I ain't against the smith's friends no more, I only on speaking terms with one of them still not having much luck with the rest of them - they should love me I agree they should and they should know they should love me and if they don't know that well consider the demons in them!) I was meant to be a member of the apostolic christian church of america anyways, what with all the family I have in that church. (like 1/3rd or more of my family is in that church, most my family is like dead or divorced by now : ( ) I like spending time with my family on sundays : )
But uh for reals you all, be all dead in christ, that means, freakin no tv, don't be all thinkin you can watch "friends" or "dancing with the stars" and be all friends with the world like that and god's going to be ok with it - NAW! ya read my last blog post, do that stuffs!
Hmmm... RssnSpy6's post and mine are still missing...
Haha, apparently you can't post Youtube links here. And what's up with the missing posts?
I posted this on 3/20, but it got dropped a day later. Take 2.
Anyway, I listened to Kaare Smith's message "A new dimension, where you no longer have to sin!" You can find it on their Brunstad Christian Church page on Facebook, but it's in Norwegian. No idea why they put a message in Norwegian on an English language FB page. Maybe it's like holding Mass in Latin... more holy somehow?
It's fun just to watch Smith, though, even if you can't understand what he's saying. With a title promising a new, sin-free dimension, you would think that he'd be a least a LITTLE excited about it. No such luck. The only time he got a bit animated was when he presented the "new dimension" notion itself. At least it's a novel idea, for SF anyway. He looked like he thought that one up all by himself.
After listening to Smith's message, I can sum up my reaction in just one word: empty. Aside from a notion that he fully conveyed in the title alone, it was a banal recital of buzz words and worn-out ideas that must get repeated several hundreds of times a year in meetings at any particular SF location. Even Smith seemed bored as he delivered them. After 15 years of honing his craft since I last listened to him, I'd hoped for something better than that. I guess nothing better is needed these days.
The comment on their FB page that GITG mentioned, "A theoretical message doesn’t grip an upright heart," is a good example of the emptiness I refer to. It really doesn't mean anything. What's "theoretical?" Smith's "sinless dimension" message was very theoretical, aside from his unsubstantiated claim that such a dimension exists. He spoke like he's been there or might even be there now, but of course he never actually made that claim. Doing so would put him on record, and then we could hold him accountable. As per usual: no evidence, not even a personal testimony to speak of, just verses strung together with an air of confidence, giving the impression that he knows what he's talking about. That's even less substantial than theory.
Maybe the gripability quotient of an SF message is inversely proportional to its substance? Actually, that's more true than you might think.
In fact, the FB anti-theoretical saying isn't even a saying; it's code. Being "gripped" and being "upright" are prized characteristics in SF. Everyone (that matters) longs to be labeled as such. Decoded, the saying means, "Just say NO to theory! Beware of theoretical thinking if you ever want to please God!" I guess certain sentiments haven't yet gone out of style, like the line "blow your reason into pieces, every blow means DEATH!" that we used to sing during the "revival" that brought Smith to power in the early 1990s. Abandoning reason probably makes you more "grippable," especially if your leaders can't engage in much thinking themselves.
SF really is scared of critical thinking. And may they ever be. It's not the righteous who flee when no one is pursuing; that would be the wicked. So guess who thinks that they are being chased when the righteous are just going about their own business as bold as lions? The wicked flatter themselves to think that they have something worth pursuing. Prov 28:1.
I sure hope RssnSpy6's post gets restored soon. I've got a doozy of a response I'm just itching to post.
Patience, smayshience! ;)
Millard: If you look at all the old pages of this blog the limit is 200 posts per page. Page number 10 will begin with post #1801. Be patient, it will happen.
Getting back to the military thing, I know you didn’t want to belabor this point but I think there is a big difference. I understand your point about secret agendas but you are going much higher up the political path than I am when it comes to military objectives. Yes, I agree there are political agendas in play with our global military objectives. I don’t believe those political agendas determine how recruits are trained and the strategies or psychological games at play during boot camp. When a person signs up to join the military they know they are going to boot camp. They know they will be moved around and trained to kill people in order to protect our country. That is the basic fundamental function of the military. The military does not lie to you and try to convince you of something different. Everyone knows that a soldier is trained to defend and protect our country.
The big difference with cults is they recruit people through lies, deceptions, and coercion. This girl joined a group that she believed were more serious mainstream Christians. That was a deception.
If she had been told upfront that in order to join SF that she would be required to move into the home of the local leader, be hateful and divorce her brothers, parents, grandparents, and give up all of her ambitions and friends, provide a free nanny service for his family in the name of “church work”, and that was the only path to heaven, do you think that she would have signed up?
There was a video produced several years ago about Jonestown and one of the survivors made a statement that really stuck with me. She said nobody ever joins a cult. They join a church, a political movement, a business organization. But nobody ever wakes up one day and decides that they are going to join a cult. That just doesn’t happen.
What does happen is that they wake up one day and realize that this group they thought was so nice and loving isn’t really what was advertised. They finally see behind the curtain and realize that the wizard is just a man and the only real power he had was in their own mind.
As you pointed out there are characteristics of cult behavior everywhere. The more I learn about cult psychology the more aware I am of coercive behavior around me. There is also a difference between cults and destructive cults. I made this point very early on the blog and referenced the work of Dr. Margaret Singer. Read her definitions of a destructive cult at http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm
A lot of very benign organizations can be defined as a cult. But a destructive cult uses mind control techniques (brainwashing) intentionally to destroy a person’s true personality and remake them in their own image. They do things like coerce them into believing lies about their own family and friends and then use them for their own purpose. Only some of them we read about in the papers.
I believe this school teacher coerced this young girl to live in his home for HIS purpose not hers. What did she gain from it? She had to work at McDonalds, and do “church work” whenever she wasn’t at work or school. She was his personal nanny and who knows what else. She gave up her own family and friends. These things have nothing to do with religion, or being a more serious Christian.
What did he gain from it? He gained a personal slave and then a bride for his son. In the process, family relationships were destroyed. It is obvious that this was an intentional agenda on his part. That kind of behavior is destructive.
Harold, thanks for your post. BTW, I don't care when a new page starts; I care about posts being dropped. The page thing was just my groping for an explanation why some posts recently went missing/lost.
Your post helps me understand something. I think part of our merry-go-round the military has to do with different focuses of interest. Your comments about the military and cults make sense when I look at them from a viewpoint that's interested in behavioral characteristics. If I was interested in categorizing, regulating, legislating, suing, or taking some other form of action against an organization I thought was a cult, the distinction between cult and destructive cult would matter to me. The thing is, I don't have much interest in that. My interest, and therefore my perspective, is very different.
Let's say that I'm outraged at you for some reason. I can't rest until I've served you right. If I took a swing at you and missed, you might accuse me of assault but, since I did no damage, you would need witnesses. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time getting me charged, much less convicted. You certainly would have an uphill battle claiming damages in civil court. But if I connected and broke your jaw, it would be a whole different story. That's how I see the cult vs. destructive cult distinction and many of your comments about the military.
Back to my little mock grudge against you, whether my fist connected or not, my intent was the same. If I wanted to deck you enough, it would be just a matter of time before I got an opportunity to do some damage. Knowing this, you would probably take measures to ensure that I never got the chance. You would do this because you are convinced of my intent and motivation: for whatever reason I've got it in for you bad. Uninformed people might think that the measures you take show that YOU have something against ME, haha! But you'd know differently, and you'd be right.
I'm interested in what goes on inside, with intent and motivations. Behavior is secondary. By the time that we have enough evidence of bad behavior, significant damage has already been done. What's more, all we can do at that point is mitigate further damage and/or retaliate, even if it's the state-sanctioned retaliation we love to call "justice." At that point, a couple of things absolutely have not happened. First, the damage was not prevented or avoided. Second, the people who caused the damage haven't changed their minds. Half of them don't change their minds even after we retaliate against them. More than half just go ahead and do it again the next chance they get, as ample studies on recidivism (crime recommission) have shown.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
In other words, lasting change does not result from behavioral remedies, except when they are preceded by a change of mind. Try to get someone who doesn't want to stop smoking to stop smoking. It doesn't matter that the physical side of the addiction is completely treatable. I'm NOT saying that everyone who wants to quit smoking succeeds or that anyone who tries to quit but fails didn't really want to quit. The success rate is really good given the treatments we now have, but they aren't foolproof. What I AM saying, though, is that if a person does NOT want to stop smoking, the chances of them succeeding are near zero even if they try, e.g., to please their loved ones, on doctor's orders, etc.
To me, given my interest, the differences between "cults" and "destructive cults" are relevant only once it's long past the point that something might have been done to change things. If a group is a "cult" this year and in five years qualifies for "destructive cult," the internal intents and motivations of people in the group that moved the group from one category to the other are probably already in motion. You alluded to this kind of thinking when you hinted that the seeds of SF cultishness might go all the way back to the founder. Those internal dynamics are what I'm interested in. If early on we can become aware of our stupidities and follies, it's easier to face them and deal with them than it will be later when they are more entrenched. But before we can do that, we need to look at and consider things that have not yet become behavioral.
Pointing out problem behavior is one way to draw our attention to the causes of those behaviors, i.e., "thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12) and motivations. I believe that one reason that human morality has remained at such dismally low levels for ages is that we are scared to death of precisely that kind of self-examination. We're fine with identifying root causes for problem behavior as long as we look anywhere else but our own hearts and minds. Heritage, gene pool, neurology, upbringing, abusive/traumatic events, environmental factors, and Oh! of course, our all-time catch-all favorite: "human nature!" Blame anything and anyone, only don't make me look at myself! haha
If I wanted to consider the military from a behavioral perspective, I'd agree with many of your comments. My problem with them is that the behavioral perspective is not my interest. I'm interested in the effects of things on our thinking and how our thinking results in our behavior. From that perspective, the similarities I mentioned between the military and cult-like environments still hold.
the smith's friends way I see it are part of a much bigger problem. I've been pushed away so much so much for so long..........it's pushed me further down into...................and god not answering my prayers. I clean had to sing to god for him to finally notice me, he's been ignoring me so much.
It doesn't work out to just love me when I'm doing good and look to be doing right, if you want to save my soul you have to love me even when I'm doing bad and that includes god! If I ain't drawed into the room, I'll stay outside in the cold!
Christians all across the board I find to be exluding of others, and clicky - this is my personal multi church experience. I'm difficult to love I won't argue that. I'm a big ticket item clean across the board.
Christians have been influenced by the culture we are in.........what is christian...........what that is supposed to be I think has been lost. It's been lost in people's ego's ------- most churches won't let me post up on their sites..........there doesn't seem to be room for me ----- there's room for them though and their egos.
Smith's friends definately aren't the only offenders - they have a loooooooooooooooooooot of company - a whole lot of company.
I'm glad though this blog thing whatever exists, good that some christians care! Not enough though, to make the big change.
The devils and demons are winning what cha going to do, their winning and your own people are letting them win!
my blog posts on my blog are all ridiculous lately, crazy nut stuffs. The smith's friends really really convinced me that I am a devil, I have to work hard to convince myself that the smith's friends are wrong and I'm not a devil (to check my latest blog post - YIKES) which I'm kinda worried about my latest blog post that the sensationalists online will hijack that video and use it for their unholy means. It's not good to be demon possessed and be able to catch it on film like that - it's bad - does it make me a unsavable devil though? That's what the smith's friends reamed into me that I am a unsaveable devil. That's why they to this day most them refuse to be my facebook friend and refuse to reply to my e-mails they view me as a devil thing.
What if I'm not the devil? What if they are!
Surely god wants me saved! yikes I'm pry going to be labeled on this earth as a witch devil thing now - shoot me please, geez
GITG: You aren't a devil or a demon. You are a precious, loved woman who is struggling with devils and demons, just like we all struggle with them. The nice thing about you is that you don't cover it up with false appearances. SF people certainly don't feel comfortable with that kind of honesty, nor do most people. You aren't so different from anyone else. Anyone who tells you that you are so different is unable or unwilling to be honest about himself or herself, that deep down they are just as confused and scared as you are.
Just like everyone else, as long as you pay more attention to what people tell you about yourself than what you know in your heart, you will continue to be scared and confused. That's one thing that makes membership in a group like SF so attractive: if you can fit in, you get lots of validation that you are not only OK, but very special. Becoming a "member" of a school of thought, like a religion or a philosophy or even a political party, is similar. In our society we can't seem to rest until we sufficiently categorize ourselves and each other. High school kids are "emo" or "goth" or "gangsta" or identify themselves some other way, even by the kind of music they listen to. Conservative, liberal, spiritual, atheist, patriotic, anarchistic, on and on and on. It's like we are afraid of the one thing that we certainly, undeniably are. Each of us is simply "me."
When people find enough similarities between me and some group or school of thought that they know of, sometimes they tell me, "You're a ____!" or, "You think like a ____!" as if now they "get" me. The strange thing about this is that they start treating me like a _____, assuming that I think the same things and want the same things that a ____ does, according to what little they know about ____s. They stop getting to know me, which is why I've learned to be obnoxious. I point out to them things about me that don't fit their molds. That's uncomfortable, both for me and for them. Sometimes people respond like they just got a "D" on a test they thought they'd aced. Sometimes people tell me that I'm wrong, that I'm not really like I say I am, as if they know better and I'm deceived or lying. But they don't know me better than me. They just don't want to admit that they were wrong, or maybe they just don't want to accept the fact that to be right about me they'd need to get to know me better, and that's going to take more work than they want to do.
When we swallow what other people tell us about ourselves, we sin three times.
First sin: we deny God before whose face we should examine what other people say about us and decide whether or not it's true. In other words, we act like God isn't there, because we accept the word of another person in a trusting, unqualified way that we should reserve for God himself. In that moment, we are conscious of only one source of information: the person telling us about ourselves. In our minds the time, God is nowhere to be found.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Second sin: we believe a lie, because at least 90% (or 99% or 99.9999%) of what a person says about us is said from ignorance, since they are ignorant about at least 90% of what there is to know about us. If they were honest, they would admit that they are mostly ignorant, and they would offer their information about us as a simple observation or at most as their opinion. As soon as they cross the line and pretend that they telling us something more certain, they are lying. They don't know. And what they do know certainly does NOT overrule what we know. At most, others can see things where we have blind spots. Pointing those things out to us can be a kindness. People who do this from kindness already know that they can tell us what they saw, but they can't tell us what it means. What it means is something that we each have to decide for ourselves. Of course there will always be plenty of people who want to tell us what things mean. We can't stop them from doing that, and it's not our responsibility if they do. But we are completely responsible for believing their lies, if that's what we do.
Third sin: we deny ourselves, because for everything a person says about us, we know a thousand things that are relevant to what they say, things that only we and God know. Our job is to take what someone else says and, in light of the gifts of knowledge that God has given us so far and before his face and with his help, decide if there is any truth to what the person said. If there was no truth in what they said, they were wrong. If they were wrong, what they said is nothing to be worried about. If we find truth in what they said, we just learned something. At that point, it stops being true because they said it. It's true because it's true and we know it's true, regardless of what they said. If it's true and the next day they come back to us and apologize for lying to us, it wouldn't change the fact that we found something true in what they said, even if it was a lie. That truth is ours, not theirs. I think that this is what Jesus meant when he talked about storing up for ourselves treasure in heaven where nothing can threaten it. Even if someone killed our bodies, they couldn't change or harm the truth that we know.
That might seem self-certain, like it lacks humility, but it's what we have to do if we're going to be honest. If we think that we know something, the truth is that we think that we know it. Pretending that we don't know it or aren't sure isn't honest, so how could it be humble? Reserving our commitment to what we know is true is cowardice, not prudence. It implies that we can't trust our own judgment. If we can't trust our own judgment, we're doomed.
What if in fact we are wrong about something that we think we know? What could we possibly use to realize our mistake and decide what's right? All we have is the same judgment that we are already afraid to trust. Distrusting our judgment doesn't get us closer to the truth, but further from it. Fear is the real problem, not unreliable judgment. (By the way, fear of trusting is not the same as doubt. Jesus reproved unbelief and lack of faith, but he didn't scold Thomas for doubting. Instead, he gave him reasons to believe.)
And it gets worse. Fearing to trust our own judgment implies that God isn't powerful enough or good enough to help us find out where we're wrong when we are confidently oblivious to our mistakes, like he'll just let us go on in our arrogance. If we are being arrogant, he will let us stumble, but that's the thing: faith and confidence aren't arrogance, and timidity isn't humble. Maybe this is why other people's opinions weigh so heavily with us. We feel safer to commit to what we think we know if there are others in the same boat with us. That kind of confidence has nothing to do either with faith or with God.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
If we know we're right and in spite of our best knowledge find out that we were wrong, then we'll stand corrected, won't we? It's bizarre how far we are willing to go to avoid committing to what we know on the chance that we might be wrong about it. Maybe it isn't about being wrong, but about being humiliated if and when we are shown to be wrong. It's as if we'd rather go through a lifetime of uncertainty and confusion than risk a few episodes of egg on our faces. If there is a better definition of insanity than doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, it's this: choosing to live in uncertainty so that if it turns out that we were wrong about what we thought we knew, at least we weren't 100% committed to it.
Now add a twist to all that: people who claim to be God's representatives telling us about ourselves, like SF members do. This makes God further removed from us, not closer to us. Then not only can't we see or hear God to get his perspective on what they are telling us, we are afraid to look or listen for God, because doing so would imply that we are resorting to a different authority than the one behind "God's representative." After all, he is speaking for God, right? Looking for a different source of information would be wrong by definition. If he "heard from God" and is delivering the information to us as God's messenger, then his ignorance about us is irrelevant. What he tells us is true not because he knows us, but because God knows us and told him to tell us. If we believe him, all the thousands of things that we know about ourselves stop being things that we know. Instead, they become things we suspect of being wrong if they disagree with what God through his "representative" told us. (We tend to ignore the fact that we were the ones who decided that he is God's representative, and that was a matter of judgment. We're ultimately responsible for that judgment anyway, so why not cut out the middleman?)
When we allow these things to happen, we stop being followers of God and become followers of men. It doesn't matter whether the men we follow claim God's authority or not. Either way, we ascribe to them an authority that could only come legitimately from a relationship with the truth that we refused to take ourselves: a direct relationship to the truth without someone in between dictating what the truth is and what it means. At the same time, we completely miss the contradiction and the irony that, if they really did have authority because of their relationship with God or with the truth, they had to get it by deciding for themselves what the truth is. That's the very thing that we refused to do for ourselves and decided to use them to do for us. If they aren't deciding what the truth is for themselves, they are just following other men the way we are following them. God and truth might have nothing to do with the whole thing. I think that the Bible is pretty clear that God and truth have nothing to do with such blind-leads-blind arrangements.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Most religions presume to tell people what truth is and what it means, and most of their followers want them to do just that. I am convinced that this is idolatry, nothing else and nothing less. We don't need to be religious to be idolaters. People who live in these kinds of relationships are practicing idolatry, even if they are atheists and even if it's in a family or even just a couple. A modern term for this, especially when the relationship doesn't seem too abusive, is "codependency." Whatever the label or the flavor, when one or a few human beings presume to define truth for one or many other human beings, they advocate idolatry, and it's always abusive to some degree. We like to sympathize with the "victims" in these situations, but they aren't innocent. The only way that those situations can continue is if the "victims" engage, participate, and enable their "abusers." An exception to this are children whose elders abuse them, which I think is why Jesus had special contempt for such people. To the degree that we exempt "victims" from their responsibility in these relationships, we treat them as if they were children, as if they were morally incapable, unable to choose or not responsible for their choices. I'm sure that there are cases when this is appropriate, but certainly not all.
No matter what label we use for them, idolatrous situations are always abusive situations. When it comes to adults, in order to enter an idolatrous/codependent/abusive/cult-like situation we have to commit all three sins that I mentioned, and we continue committing those sins as long as we stay in the situation. In order to exit an abusive situation, to truly get free from it, we need to stop committing those sins by accepting our responsibility to decide what truth is for ourselves. And that's exactly what people who have "recovered" from abusive relationships and cults describe about their recoveries. If they truly recover rather than just go out and find another abusive relationship or cult to get involved in, they do so by reclaiming their right and responsibility to decide what truth is and what it means for themselves.
By the time a person leaves an abusive relationship, she has done a lot of questioning. She has found out that questioning is not OK with her authority figure and that the answers she gets really aren't answers; they are attempts to avoid giving real answers and to prevent further questioning. She has decided that it's wrong for questions not to be OK and that she deserves real answers. At some point, she decides that her authority figure has lost the right to tell her what truth is and what it means. The question then is whether she'll start deciding for herself what truth is and what it means, or if she'll just find another authority figure to cling to.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
It would be daunting to accept the responsibility to decide truth and meaning for ourselves, except that it's the only thing that makes sense and, when things are honestly boiled down, it's what we already do anyway to some degree. As crazy as we can sometimes feel, we are sure about at least some things. If we start with what we know and build from there, there's hope. There will never be a lack of things that we are unsure of and know nothing about. But if we ignore what we know in order to focus on (i.e., worry about) what we don't, we aren't being totally honest, are we?
I know what it's like to allow uncertainty and fear rob me of confidence about almost everything. There have been several times in my life when I almost despaired and had to reevaluate everything that I thought was true. There were two things that I could never let go of, though; otherwise I might not have made it through those times.
First, I knew what I wanted. I had lots of uncertainty and fear about that, too, but bottom line, I wanted what was right and good, and I committed myself to them. I decided that if I was wrong about what was right and good, I'd have to trust God to correct me. If I was wrong about believing that I wanted what was right and good, I'd have to trust God to correct me. Otherwise, I'd be lost. None of us can do any more than that.
Second, there were people in my life that I cared about and who cared about me. I knew that what I did affected them. Even if I turned out to be stark, raving mad, off my rocker about what I "knew" was the truth and what it meant, I knew that choosing to avoid hurting them was better than doing things that would hurt them. At least doing good for them was one thing that was right and good.
GITG, I encourage you to focus on those two things, too. Spend less time thinking about SF and those who don't understand you or love you. Think about what's right and good and about the people you care about. Let them be your starting points and your anchors in all the craziness. And what about the crap you get from anyone else that disagrees with what you and your loved ones know about you? Toss it where it belongs: into the crapper.
Start with what you know, especially with the things that you know you want. What we want is much more important than what we think we are or what others think we are. We can decide what we want and we can change what we want. What we want will change what we are. Worship and devotion to God is first and most importantly about what we want. All the thief on the cross had to do to go to Paradise with Jesus was decide that he wanted to. What we do and what we become are results, not causes. Jesus said that God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. Our spirits and the truth about us start with what we want. If you consider Romans 7, Paul pretty much said that it's all and only about what we want.
Decide what you want and start pursuing it. Forget about what people tell you, especially people who claim to be God's representatives. Listen to the ones who love you, and listen to your own heart, to the things that you know are true. Things will start making more sense.
I agree with all ya said milliard.......it's something I've battled much past few years, being treated so badly by the smith's friends and being able to tell myself I'm ok, it was them that was messed up. But anyways this week is looking up : ) tonight at my mainstream christian church one the sisters gave me a hug : ) (sometime's people just give me hugs - I think when I have crappy weeks it's pry pretty evident) it went well tonight bible study did : ) and also had good time fellowshipping at my aunts apostolic christian church. I beat myself up to much somedays for sure........thankful that god is merciful he must be cause my butt is still able to all fellowship and buisiness and all go to church n'stuff : ) I hope and pray much these days that I really eschew evil, really hate the demons, hate satan, dont' look up to the occult musicians don't listen to the occult music no more. I want to work to love god more and the things of above more.......and be done with the occult I never want to have nothing to do with a demon again, or geez if one were to possess me again I hope I fight it off next time, not roll out a red carpet and crack bottles of champaign.
so this week is going better, thank god. More I'm getting involved in both my churches, more smith's friends thank god are becoming a distant far away memory. I've even forgave em.......I don't have that magical "peace with god and man" thing full out that apostolic christians are so into having.........think I'm heading in that direction : )
Fellowshipping is going much better for me these days : )
Giving it to God: I also think Millard’s last few posts have been good. He is right; you are a precious, loved person and you have worth just because God created you, loves you, and has a purpose for you. You are His child. Even if human beings see you with no value (which I don’t believe to be true), knowing that God created you and loves you is enough. On March 22 you made a statement on which I’d like to comment.
“I still don't view mainstream christianity, as like hardcore on the narrow way, most mainstream churches you can wear jewelry, you can wear makeup, watch tv sure! Mainstream christianity just seems like caos to me! Some you maybe are following jesus but it just such caos mainstream christianity is!”
I think most people whether they are a Christian or even someone who just CLAIMS to be, would agree that God takes sin very seriously. One of the problems that I see is that there are many who ‘claim’ to be Christian but are really Christian ‘in name only’. They may do it because it fits THEIR agenda and works in THEIR best interest. It may gain something for them like a role, title, or position, influence of or favor from others, finances, trust and/or friendship with certain people. I believe that is what some presidents (including the current one), Jim Jones, David Koresh, this teacher/church leader, and other con artists have all done. It has nothing to do with loving, worshipping, honoring, glorifying, being obedient to God and having a relationship with God or Jesus Christ. So, when someone ‘claims’ they’re a Christian yet routinely and blatantly displays actions and behaviors that very apparently don’t line up with God, it gives Christianity a bad name in the eyes of non-Christians. I think this is one reason why non-Christians usually view Christians as hypocrites.
I think as Christians who claim to love Jesus, we should do a better job of honoring God by showing love to others and making every effort not to sin. But does God consider wearing jewelry, wearing make-up, watching tv, and other such regulations sinful? Do those things keep one from accepting Jesus as one’s Savior, loving and obeying Him and worshipping God and/or loving others? The Bible tells us that He cares about the condition of our heart. And, because God is omniscient, He knows what is in our hearts, our minds, and our motives. We can’t see inside of a person, but we can and do see people’s behavior and actions, we hear their words.
Luke 6:45, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.”
A side note: If things such as jewelry, make-up, and televisions are sinful and separate us from God, why would members of SF now change their teaching and practice of these outward appearances? In the past, members of SF have dressed in a way that would give the appearance of what people perceive to be more conservative, godly, religious, Christian, serious, righteous by wearing their hair up in buns or ponytails, wearing skirts, no make-up, no shorts for men. So are these practices no longer sinful? Has the Word of God changed? Aren’t these just man-made rules that load people down with expectations in order to appear like what people have come to think a more serious Christian should look like? Jesus came to do away with the old covenant. He established a new covenant. He set us free from legalistic bondage such as that.
“Since therefore, brethren we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water.” Hebrews 10:19-22.
“But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7
Are we selfish, unwilling to be repentant WHEN we sin, refuse to admit that we are sinners in need of a Savior? Are we hateful, prideful, arrogant, selfish, ruthless, unforgiving, disobedient to GOD (not a church leader or any other human) but to God? It’s the condition of one’s heart that God is interested in, not what we wear on our bodies, our heads or if we own a television.
If a television is sinful, what about a computer? Should everyone get rid of computers, too? Most people would probably agree that there are some programs/shows, etc. on television that portray people engaging in sinful behaviors and glamorizing sin which dishonors God. But, there are websites on computers that could also be categorized as such and be used for sinful purposes such as pornography, too. But, the computer is also a fantastic tool that is helpful in many ways. What about social networking sites? They CAN BE used to help people stay in contact with loved ones more easily, which is a good thing, but they have also been used by perverted, demented people to prey upon others for the purpose of kidnapping, rape, prostitution, pornography, etc. So should we all get rid of our computer, too?
What about if one is involved in sports, art, music or any other activity and sins while participating in that activity. Does that make sports, art, or music sinful? The point I’m trying to drive home is that it’s not the make-up, the jewelry, the television, the computer, or the activities like art, music, sports, travel, reading that are sinful. It is man. We are sinners. It’s what we do while we’re using or engaging in those things. Does God care if we do or don’t wear make-up, jewelry, or a head covering? Is that what saves us?
There’s been some reference on this blog to ‘deny yourself, take up your cross daily’. Does this refer to deny yourself of jewelry, make-up, television, new shoes, a vacation? Or does it refer to ‘deny yourself’ when you are tempted to sin, deny yourself of losing your temper and threatening someone, deny yourself when you are tempted to lie, deny yourself when you want to belittle or intimidate others, deny yourself when you want to turn others against their own family so you can move them into your home and use them for your purposes?
“Christians all across the board I find to be exluding of others, and clicky”
You’re not the first person that I’ve heard make this observation and comment. Remember that Christians are not perfect, they’re forgiven. Yes, as Christians, we represent Jesus Christ and we should make a concerted effort not to be clicky, and excluding of others. We should make every attempt to try to see others as God sees them. God loves people. He is not clicky or exclusive. But, we are still human so we are fallible and finite. Because we are human, we sin; we are finite in our wisdom and understanding. We are not all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful like God is so sometimes we may do things that are wrong or hurt other people even without knowing it. No matter how much we try to convince ourselves, no one is going to be perfect. We will all make mistakes and sin. But, I think it depends on how we handle the sin once it has been committed. Do we try to hide it, sweep it under the rug, or act like it never happened? Do we lie about our sin? Or do we admit our sin, apologize to the person we’ve sinned against, and turn away from continuing in the sin?
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
The Bible tells us that God loved ‘the world’ so much that He gave up His only Son; He wasn’t exclusive. Jesus wasn’t clicky or exclusive. “For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His ONLY begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
He loved everyone. He even ate and fellowshipped with sinners, even those who have done unspeakable things like murder, divorce, abortion, intentionally turn loved ones against their own family. He spoke the truth in love. He came to seek and save the lost. If He had been clicky and exclusive, how could He seek out sinners and tell the Good News to those who needed to hear about salvation for those who are lost? He healed people. He gave to the needy. He listened to people, even those who weren’t one of His disciples. He treated people with compassion, kindness, unselfishness. He listened to people and talked with them. He set the example for us. We should do the same.
In reply to sophie, the take up my cross and denying myself is definately multifaceted thing, deny myself any pride I might be tempted to have, not give into the lusts of the flesh it's a denying of myself, these days I crochet barbie clothes that's my big thing lately I do while "denying myself and taking up my cross and following jesus" denying myself tv shows I add that to the pile for 100%, except I do watch news and christian tv, but I'm done with the worldly tv programs, I don't want to be no friend with the world! Jesus reached out to people for sure, I can not defend the smith's friends on that one, I'm currently locked out of their church. I'm ok with that though, they just aren't my church anymore, now I belong to the apostolic christian church of america, and living hope church - 2 churches that's 2 : ) So it's ok now that they not like me : ) since how they ain't my church anymore.
Thing I've learned with god, his hand is never to short to save, I've learned not to speak or have slowly learned it's best not to speak evil of people. God can save, he can do the impossible, all we need to do sometimes is just get to praying a lot. I don't really have faith in men//man//mankind but god He still saves. He's working in my life these days for the better, few years ago I would of never of thought I could ever forgive the smith's friends, but now I'm able to.
If any you having any spiritual struggles, any issues I recommend praying. God still works the big miracles I'm proof of that. Though I know god isn't no where near done with me, and I wouldn't want him to be done with me. From glory to glory with jesus I'll go, following jesus, someday this stupid idiot this idiot of idiots hopefully will I don't know look a bit more like jesus.........less of me, more jesus!
I'm off to bed now : ) been staying up to late lately.
I was going to record the special recording they had just for me, salem fellowship (smith's friends church) phone system was transfering me over to another line w/a special a "very special" recording just for me, but now they clean don't even have the option to leave a message. And if you call 1-503-391-2807 they still haven't changed their phone announcements since may of last year!!! So if you don't have their churches secret passwords your locked out of their church! I asked for their passwords they said several weeks ago that they'd give me the passwords and they haven't despite my nagging them much! It's a lock out. People are being locked out of this cult. I personally updated wikipedia this smith's friends wikipedia today cause I'm locked out of this church it isn't my free choice to leave this church I'm LOCKED OUT! I'm given 0 choice in the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABrunstad_Christian_Church
This is the only public website for salem fellowship church http://experiencemacleay.org/ there's nothing on there where I can see salem fellowships church times that I can see though my husband who talked with the leading brothers, tells me that was their plan to put salem fellowships church times etc. on this website and maybe I don't know unlock me out of their cult. To the 4 smith's friends members that still read this blog e-mail me the passwords if you know the mood would strike your satanic butts to uh be legit sheriwalz@gmail.com I'm not a fly by night opperation like you smith's friends, you can e-mail me, I'll actually e-mail back! I'm a bit f'd up - well been in a cult for several years, no deprogramming, don't even know where to go to be deprogrammed I know though I am still brainwashed - YIKES! I didn't find life in the smith's friends church, not life more abundantly that is for 100% sure, so they are doing a favour not replying to my e-mails and locking me out of their cult. Maybe it's god's doing all this. God is working in my life, every sunday at my aunts church, god opens my eye's up to his word more. Cause you know before god got to work in my heart/life whatever I WAS BLIND AS A BAT once upon a time BLIND. Now my vision is much improved - love your enemies - love the smith's friends - pray for them. Very few people really get a good vision for the way jesus paved through the veil that is his flesh. Get to where they can look beyond the tiffs the fights the wars - look beyond that look to jesus the author and what finisher of our faith. People are going to fall at our sides, to the left and the right, hell maybe the apostolic christian church of america will go the cult route one day to - you never know you never know which church is going to stand at the end! if any - YIKES. Jesus says when he returns will he find anyone faithful - he asks this somewhere in the bible (I have the bulk of the bible memorized by heart - w/the exception that I still use bible gateway as a crutch to find the location of all the 5 billion verses I have memorized) we are in perilous times, this is it the end days we are here! We are here right now! People are falling by the 1000's to our right and left.
The smith's friends did leave me for dead, but jesus didn't! Jesus didn't!
Don't walk in the flesh that's my advice, be dead with christ. (the flesh is tv, if your watching worldly tv that is a fleshly thing not just a friend with the world thing..............what are you feeding watching um tyra banks for instance (I used to like that show before my not be friend with the world athon) that ain't feeding your spirit - is that walking in teh spirit in anyway watching tyra banks????????????? NO it ain't, be in gods word, be watching the tbn, jan crouch's pink hair in wonderful : ) hahahaha I love jan so : ) I can make a joke : )
keep ye's eye's up above jesus coming back real real real real soon pry
Millard: I think I understand your objectives and it is very interesting to me as well. I think we are on similar if not the same paths. How do our experiences affect our thinking and how does our thinking effect our behavior? I recently read a book about the Mormons by Jon Krakauer called “Under the Banner of Heaven”. He goes into great detail about the history of Joseph Smith and the following generations focusing on what they believed and how that resulted in several fundamentalist splits in the Mormon Church that ultimately produced things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and murders committed by Ervil LeBaron, Ron and Dan Lafferty, and others all in order to protect the “faith”, the “one true church”, to help usher in Christ’s second coming. ‘’
The author is clear that he is not a believer in any religion which, I think, gives him a rather interesting viewpoint in trying to understand how and why the Mormons think the way they do.
My perspective is that this book could have been written about almost any religion…ever. There are extremist factions in every religion I can think of that professed to be the one true faith, the one true church. Most of them claim a prophet who is connected in some way to a higher power. Some people, like this author, view Jesus Christ and Christianity in the same way.
*The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.* Margaret Singer
If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, what makes that different than those Mormons who believe that Joseph Smith received revelations from God? Or that the current Mormon Quorum of Twelve Apostles receives revelations from God, or David Koresh, Applewhite, Mohammed, or Buddha?
The basic underlying theme, for me is that, in almost all of these other faiths, veneration of the followers begins and ends with the leader. The Mormons consider Joseph Smith a prophet on equal footing with Jesus Christ. Muslims hold Mohammed right up there with God. Isn’t this the kind of idol worship that you referred to?
*The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves.* Margaret Singer
So what makes Jesus Christ different than any other self-proclaimed prophet? Who were the Crusaders following when they waged war on the Muslims? From that point of view, can we really say that the Christian faith is any different than the Mormon faith?
Margaret Singer
*The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.*
If you grow up believing that Johan Smith was a prophet and that everyone outside your church are apostates and the only truth and ultimate authority lies in your church group then it is easy to see that this can produce the kind of fundamentalist zealot that will kill and destroy anything or any idea that clashes with their beliefs.
“Joseph Smith preached something he called ‘free agency’; everyone was free to choose whether to be on the side of the Lord or the side of wickedness; it was an entirely personal decision – but woe to those who decided wrong. If you knowingly chose to shun the God of Joseph and the Saints [that is the Mormon saints], you were utterly undeserving of sympathy or mercy.” In other words; “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.
From what I understand of the Koran, Mohammed preached the same ideals.
*The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members.* Margaret Singer
These ideals and behaviors are a common theme that runs throughout every religious cult that I have come across. When you couple this kind of belief with persecution from those outside the group, this can have devastating consequences.
When Joseph Smith was murdered by a lynch mob and the Mormons were run out of Missouri they endured great hardship in their trek to the Utah territory. This had a purification effect on the Mormons and in many ways made them stronger. I wonder if the Muslim persecutions during the Crusades produced a stronger Muslim faith in some.
The Israelites were persecuted by the Egyptians and I believe that God used this to purify and strengthen the Israelite nation and prepare them to conquer the land of Canaan.
For me it boils down to who the leader is. Before Joseph Smith became a prophet he made his living as a “crystal gaser”. I interpret that to be something like the gypsy fortune tellers, toying with, at best mysticism, and at the worst fraud. As a prophet he ordered the deaths of many people who opposed him and at one time commanded an armed militia of five thousand Mormon troops ready to declare war on the state of Illinois.
Mohammed was something like a mobster whose gangs would raid and pillage desert caravans for a living. He also mustered up an army and waged war on the citizens of Mecca.
Jesus never mustered up an army. Jesus never had any property that we know of. He had nothing of His own. The Jews of that day were looking for military Messiah who would raise up an army to destroy the Romans but that wasn’t Jesus. He didn’t fit their mold for the Messiah.
Post a Comment