WordWolf

I'll be sure to ask him what I was wondering about in the other thread. That is, if he asked or approved Jeff posting that letter "to us", and, either way, how much of it accurately reflects his feelings at present. If I'm going to smoke him, I'd prefer to do it over legitimate problems, and not misunderstandings. ;)-->

I've compared the GSC to 12-step programs for survivors of experiences to people before....

This, really, is what I wanted to know from him, and what I thought was relevant to this discussion.

Thought this thread might help Paw's little search....

It has been reported that Alexander the Great was asked, on his deathbed, who he willed his empire to. The reported reply: "To the strongest." =============== If I was taught right, Trotsky had the quote wrong. He said it was "my country, right or wrong", meaning, I support my country even if it's completely wrong. The quote was originally, "My country, right or wrong- IF RIGHT, TO DEFEND IT, IF WRONG, TO CORRECT IT." That's how I heard it in history class back when.

[WordWolf responds in boldface as usual.]

Sooooooo.... MJ...... Yes, or no, then....... Was it "wrong", in your opinion.. For John to research his paper? For John to write his paper? For John to share the results of his paper? ============== Should he instead have buried the thing and trusted that "God will cover?"

So, how big is CES and who's currently in the top spots? What about other offshoots?

Sky4it: Just so you know, that letter was written in the late 80's and was current when the breakups were taking place. There's been over a decade since then. We've certainly learned a lot about errors and mistakes in pfal. Perhaps JAL has learned some of them, too-perhaps some of the SAME errors, including the "first century" thing and the "mogfot" thing. I don't know one way or the other. I DO know, however, that it's VERY sloppy of him to not have revised that accordingly when he had the chance and done revisions, if he no longer believes that. So, I'm not sure he still teaches or believes that. I'm not sure he DOESN'T, either. He'll have to speak up for himself, or someone will have to cite a recent teaching/quote on that from him. I figured you'd want to know that, since the letter makes more sense when you know it's fundamentally the same letter written long ago. (Still error, but a bit more understandable that way.)

A)How many multi-state organizations have formed (at least 1 regular local meeting/group in at least 3 states-or 2 if there's multiple meetings locally) are there? Who started them and runs them now? How big are they? B)How many multi-state organizations have closed down since 1989? C) How many state wide organizations have formed? (Multiple members and meetings across more than 20% of a state, with members only in that state?) Who started them and runs them now? How big are they? D) How many local, one-or two neighborhood, or one-household-sized organizations currently meet in someone's home?

There was a single post that was eventually edited by staff, in the middle of some other thread. It was deemed inflammatory, apparently.

Can we refine the original question into 4 different questions? (Context for all: extwi, with doctrine and leadership formerly from twi) A)How many multi-state organizations have formed (at least 1 regular local meeting/group in at least 3 states-or 2 if there's multiple meetings locally) are there? Who started them and runs them now? How big are they? B)How many multi-state organizations have closed down since 1989? C) How many state wide organizations have formed? (Multiple members and meetings across more than 20% of a state, with members only in that state?) Who started them and runs them now? How big are they? D) How many local, one-or two neighborhood, or one-household-sized organizations currently meet in someone's home? I think we can end up mixing the answers and talking apples-oranges if we're not careful.

Thus the value in allowing us some anonymity at the GSC, for those of us who prefer not to bring in our baggage. Or, those who answer faster to our screenname than our legal name, as the case may be. ======== Hello, Eagle-Steve, however you'd like to be addressed. You know where the coffee is already, help yourself. Perhaps, should you ever have spare time (I've heard of this "spare time" thing somewhere), you might consider updating that old article, and letting the old and new sit side by side, allowing both to be viewed, and the differences also seen. Or perhaps not.

I think everyone's saying it better than me, so I won't address that. (Nor will I insist my viewpoint is the only one. We've all had enough of that.) Quick sidenote, Coolwaters... I've gone over the details of the supposed Jubbulpore incident and concluded it was entirely manufactured, and never happened except in the words of the man who said it happened. Let me know if you need the breakdown-I'm sure you can do it yourself. We also discussed it here somewhere and I broke it down already. (Maybe a search under "Jubbulpore"?)

Um, here on the GSC.... You hit "new post" or "reply". While the window is open, the first menu item right above the box you type in is a smiley-face. Click on it once for the smiley menu. Click on any smiley in the menu to add it to your post where the cursor now rests.

Maybe not, but there's nothing I've ever done that would land me in jail if the cops ever got a tape of it..... This "well, nobody's perfect, so let's never say wrongdoing is wrong" is too selective. Let's take it to its logical conclusion: empty all the jails and prisons. After all, who are we to cast asperstions on someone for stabbing someone for their sneakers? Or for killing and eating them? Maybe that was right for THEM, did you ever think that? Why aren't they entitled to set their own standards?

Do I tell people? Sometimes. It depends on the people and the context.

Thanks for answering, Evan. From my seat, I can't quite tell if the class Evan took was completely different in structure from the one the other guy took, or if it was identical, and subject to different interepretations. I suspect there WERE substantial differences and a degree of variety between the classes. I ALSO suspect much of the differences depend on the outlook of the participant. =============== I'd like to ask a separate question: For those who took it, looking back, do you think the "oath of silence" is a good thing? Why or why not? (I think those who didn't take it all agree on one side, but we may lack critical information to make an informed judgement.) ============= Here's a different digression... Uncle Hairy, I'm not going to ask you what fraternity or college.... but I AM going to address something you said about initiation. It is true that some organizations, both fraternities in college and organizations outside of college (like Freemasons and so on) have initiations that are either private or secret, esoteric in either case. (Not to be shared with outsiders.) These ceremonies can vary widely. Some are simple and dignified. Some can hurt or kill. Those that can damage the participant are called "hazing". To operate in a college, each fraternity must agree to the "no hazing" policy. Some are serious about it, others pay lip service to it- "don't get caught". If a member IS subjected to hazing, as either an adult in an organization, or as a college student in a fraternity, they are able to bring criminal charges and other charges. For a fraternity, a single lawsuit can close down a chapter, and damage the reputation of the national organization, if it has one. Colleges tend to be severe when people are caught violating the "no-haze" rule. Some national fraternities have also been known to suspend chapters for even questionable activities that fall short of standard definitions of hazing. Anyway, Uncle Hairy, please give a little od your perspective on that issue. (I'm leaving the question vague so you can give any answer you want-I'm not accusing you or yours of anything.) I DO know a "hold harmless" clause in a document would be thrown out of court in a hazing lawsuit. Does anyone here think a "hold harmless" clause is a good idea? If so, why?

So, based on your reply, you ARE saying that "God" is a PROPERTY, a SUBSTANCE, "Godness", if you will, of which God is composed? Therefore, producing after His kind would produce an offspring composed of "Godness"? "Your son is what you are, not what you do." "Why is it so difficult to accept that the Son of God would be what His Father is, a God?" Looks like that's EXACTLY what you're saying, to me.

Hm. Technically speaking, he's right. Technically speaking, Evan did NOT "defend" Momentus. Evan "attacked" any criticism of Momentus. 1) it's a bad idea if your neurotic and need a therapist. (What does that suggest about the people who had problems with Momentus? Is this meant to suggest that all criticism is the result of the person having psychological problems before going in, and all the healthy people do just peachy? The implication is too weak to state directly, but I think it's there. What do you people think "..It's certainly not for everybody...certainly not for neurotic people...that's what mental health professionals are for..." means? 2) Less than stellar reports come from people who fail to apply what they learn there. Too bad... What is this meant to suggest? Does this mean that Momentus is peachy, but if you don't apply it, THEN you'll have problems? If that's not what it means, what is this meant to say? "..few people put wheels on what they learn there. Seems most people 'have an experience' and then just return to their previous lives without making changes. Too bad..." That's what I'm getting from this-anyone else besides me and Evan? That would imply a defense of Momentus, but it's too nebulous and fuzzy to phrase it as a statement.

Rachel, Is "God" a substance, or a title? I call my father "Dad". Dad had a son. Is that son also "Dad"? A "Dad"? Let's say Dad is an airline pilot. Will his son also be an airline pilot? Will he share in the "airline pilot nature"? Saying that a SON of God is necessarily God is no different from saying a son of an airline pilot is necessarily an airline pilot. At least you carried your other logic to its conclusion. If Jesus, Son of God, became a god/godling/demigod at his resurrection, then when WE are transformed, we will also be godlings, we "will also be as gods". Please examine your conclusion carefully. You should notice that it's flawed, which means that your reasoning to get there is flawed.

Hm. Its strongest advocates here STILL refuse to disclose what's supposedly so great about this program you're supposed to pay $150 for, sight unseen. Me, I paid less than that for pfal, and I had access to a lot more information about that. If it's so wonderful, why not allow people an INFORMED decision? If it's protected by an oath of silence, what is that silence meant to protect and conceal? The adamant refusals of the participants to go beyond "It's wonderful but I can't provide any specifics" tell me more about how wrong this is than any two testimonies of people who went in to Momentus and had their lives shredded.

JustThinking... Technically, if he ignores your question, he can't be said to have lied by saying that he did it entirely on his own with no input from JAL. It is possible that he's not deliberately ignoring your question, and he's not attempting to mislead. HOWEVER, I've run into him on other boards, posting messages that say "Wow-I just discovered this website with some cool stuff and some interesting doctrines. Can anyone here tell me anything about them?" With a link to an official CES website. I believe you can determine what you think of such posts on your own.

Well, now I pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Other than that, no.