Over on As Bereans Did, Seeker of Truth (who seems to be quite a nice guy when he’s not waxing Goddy) had a post that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. He says the following:

You know what I think about the quest for truth and how to find it?
It’s pretty simple actually;

1)WANT THE TRUTH
if you don’t truly want it, you won’t get it

2)DON’T ASK OTHERS WHAT THEY THINK THE TRUTH IS
leave it to God to reveal this, He is smarter than people

3)TELL GOD YOU WANT THE TRUTH
now that you know you want it, you need to tell Him you want it

Whoa, whoa, back the truck up.

I’m sorry, SOT, but I find this to be quite disingenuous. You know why?

Because you aren’t seeking the truth.

I have no problem with people who go off on an honest seeking of truth, and they come out being Christians. I have no idea why the fuck they’d do that, but that’s what they did, and if it makes ‘em happy more power to them. But this is not an honest seeking of truth. This is starting with quite a few assumptions. You are already directed towards a faith of some kind, because these steps are assuming that God exists, that God wants what’s best for you, and as the following steps show, that God is a Christian God, that he speaks through the bible, that Jesus exists, that Jesus was a literal person… the assumptions go on and on.

This is not a seeking of truth, this is a seeking of being a better Christian. And you know what? If you look to be a better Christian, yes, you’ll be one – but that doesn’t mean you’re gonna find the truth.

And this, to me, speaks of the incredible, insufferable (SOT, you know I care, but I’m going to have to be honest here, try not to take it personal) arrogance of the Christian mind.

And the response to my comments saying such were fairly condescending.

I guess mine could be taken the same way, but do you know why I think mine are not? Because mine are inclusive. I don’t care if you’re Christian, Islam, Quaker, Buddhist, Taoist, whatever. You’re wrong. But that’s OK, I am to. Everyone has a piece of it, and when you take those pieces and put them together you get… the truth. The truth that no one has, that everyone wants, and that everyone comes to in their own way and through their own path. But not the Christians. Oh, no. You get your Bible, you get a bunch of myths that may or may not be true, you assume they are true, and you lie your entire life based on the assumption that those myths are inviolable.

Your choice, of course. You want to limit yourself, have at it. But I’m sick of it.

I’m not going to engage these Christians anymore. I’m tired of being condescended to. I’m tired of having to feel like somehow I’m less of a person because I don’t believe in the same sky buddy that they do, and I’m tired of having to shake it off because the feeling that I’m less of a person is utterly irrational – by definition, I’m more of a person – because there’s room in my system for everyone. Even Christians. At least Christians who aren’t insufferably and unapologetically arrogant.

So… I give up. Enough of that shit. There was a reason that I didn’t want this site to have any kind of Christian stuff in it in the first place, a rule which I relaxed. I’m not sure why I relaxed it anymore. I’m not going to change it back at the moment, but I’m just not going to waste my energy on this shit anymore. Life’s too short, and while there may be a God, there is no Jesus, there may be an ideal of Jesus but an ideal ain’t gonna send me to hell, and it’s time I just shake my foot off and move on with my life, such as it is.

I… either spent or wasted, I can’t decide which… three hours watching this video. It lasts four hours. I watched three of them. The topic is fascinating. Basically this guy, Nassim Haramein, has come up with a Grand Unified Theory that is quite interesting and also quite food for thought.

And he’s done a bit more than your average crackpot by managing to write a peer reviewed paper and get it into a scientific journal. Which is one of the only things that is keeping me from dismissing him out of hand.

But I listened, and I thought, “This guy is either the smartest genius I have ever seen, and will change the world, or this guy is an unmitigated crackpot with a physics background.” And I still haven’t been able to decide which.

However, there were a few things that fascinated me. One of them being his treatise on crop circles. Specifically, this one.

This is a stereotypical “gray” type alien, holding a CD-like image, which actually has text encoded in it, in ASCII.

The text reads as follows:

Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES.
Much PAIN but still time.
BELIEVE.
There is GOOD out there.
We oppose DECEPTION.
Conduit CLOSING.
[bell sound] (ASCII 0×07)

I heard this, and I wanted to believe. I wanted to believe desperately. I wanted to grab onto every bit of hope and belief that this message had. I was ready to set aside pretty much all of my skepticism to believe this. It passed.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it be nice for there to be something out there watching over us, helping us through, making sure we don’t do things that are too stupid? Wouldn’t it be great if there were a benevolent intelligence out there, ready to step in if we did really stupid stuff? I think it would, and I’d give almost anything to have even a shred of evidence that it was there.

But I don’t.

I don’t, and I spent most of the afternoon depressed because of it.

Some of you Christians really piss me off, you know that? And do you know why? Because your fucking God is supposed to be sitting out there, loving and caring for everyone, and yet – look at this. I have more hard evidence that extraterrestrial beings care than your God. And somehow I’m expected to believe? Even if I want to and would just like an excuse to be able to just wash my hands of all of it and leave it in the hands of something more intelligent and capable?

Crackpot? Maybe. But whether or not what he’s offering is true, he’s offered more concrete hope than a whole flood of Christians.

More soon.

I have been giving some thought to the situation the world is in, the situation that I was in because of the WCG, etc., etc. I’ve come to some interesting thoughts that I’ll now subject you the reader to.

Much of what we do on a day to day basis can be narrowed down to the fact that we are animals. When we are faced with something that causes us fear, we either fight or flee. That’s the “fight or flight” instinct. We’ll generally do one or the other.

Unscrupulous people can and do take advantage of that. The WCG was “flight”. They taught us to be scared of what was happening around the world, so we fled to the refuge that the WCG manufactured and offered. And once you have found that refuge, you’ll do whatever is necessary mentally to stay there – regardless of whether it makes continuing sense or not.

Others choose to fight. Hence those useless wars off in the middle east.

But it’s all rooted in fear.

It seems the best solution to that is… don’t be afraid.

But that’s easier said than done. It’s in our nature to be afraid, and once we are, it’s in our nature to fight or flee.

But I got to thinking of what role spirituality has. And after some thought, I think it’s connecting to that part of us that is *not* an animal. That part of us that can calm the animal, interject some perspective into the whole situation, and say “it’s not as bad as you think it is”. Because, when you come right down to it, the absolute worst thing that can happen to anyone is death. And if you stop fearing death… what can hurt you? And death happens regardless – sooner maybe, later, maybe, but always happens.

As it says, “O death, where is thy sting?”

Spirituality is not following a bunch of stupid laws or some man in the sky. It is not following an impossible code of conduct or attending services every week. It’s not praying, it’s not judging. There is no sky buddy, there is no Jesus, there is no Mithras or Horus or any other such deities. They simply don’t exist. But their ideals do. The ideals that death is not final, that death is not to be feared, that you should strive to be something other than an animal, that you should make the best of your life, and even more importantly, make the best of your death. These ideals exist and are imperfectly expressed by religion. Expressed, modified, damaged, subverted, and destroyed by organized religion.

I no longer abhor Christians or Christianity – or any other religion. Instead, I think I feel sorry for them. Because they got stuck halfway towards what it all *actually* means, which is transcending our animal nature and tapping into something more orderly and less chaotic, and at the same time embracing the chaos and working with it to create a sum much greater than its parts. I guess halfway there is better than nothing, but if they can’t make it all the way, it just turns into a warped idea of that transcendent nature, and is ripe for being turned into a means of oppression rather than freedom.

Bad things may happen. But I’m not near as scared as would have been even a year ago. As long as I am still alive, everything’s OK. And if I’m not… hell, I won’t know anyway, or I’ll know but won’t care because I’ll have other things to worry about.

So I mentioned this paper in an earlier post, and I mentioned it on a few other ex-member forums as well.

Interesting the range of reactions it got, spanning from wide-eyed “That explains everything!” to hysterical gnashing of teeth “But WE weren’t a CULT you know!” Anyway I have finally managed to read through the entire thing for myself, and I’ve let it percolate for a day or so. All emphasis is my own, my remarks are bolded in brackets.

Imitative Learning

More recently, the field of neurobiology through its use of imaging studies of the brain has suggested an additional viewpoint on imitative learning. Imaging studies show that neurons in certain areas of the brain are stimulated when a growing child perceives the emotions of a parent. That is, by simply observing a parent’s emotional state, certain areas of the child’s brain are activated. These areas would usually be stimulated by the child directly if he or she were experiencing that emotion. Therefore, the discovery of the functions served by mirror neurons may suggest a human readiness to imitate the behaviors of a parental figure, and mirror neurons can be seen as building blocks used in the development of some identifications (Olds, 2006). [Read more on mirror neurons here.]

Identifications also might occur by making loss of a loved object more tolerable. For example, at bedtime, the child might sing to herself or her doll in the manner that her mother sang to her. In this way, she is diminishing the impact of the loss of mother’s availability and is learning to give herself comfort.

Identification with the Aggressor

Although identifications are usually associated with love, identifications also are made during experiences of danger. To lessen anxiety, some children or adults might interject characteristics of the anxiety-provoking object to cope with experiences of panic and helplessness. Anna Freud described this kind of identification as “identification with the aggressor” (A. Freud, 1936). In this type of identification, the individual identifies with the object’s attitude by projecting danger onto the outside and away from the object. This is an intrapsychic reaction to a real threat or actual traumatic experience. Emch (1944) further theorizes that, in some cases, where one or both parents are “unknowable” because of unpredictable, violent, or chaotic behavior or prolonged absence, the child may imitate the most “salient” of the parents’ behaviors with the unconscious aim of gaining some predictability in a difficult life.

That last sentence is the best non-victimizing (empowering even) explanation I have seen, for those 2nd-generation parents who continued on in the Spanky Meredith school of child discipline.

(Check out the latest testimony over at Ekklesia for a real live example of this. Also while I’m on the subject of Ekklesia, sign up for their new Forum, it looks like they need members.)

 In contrast to the first-generation cult member, the child who is born or raised in a cult has neither the previous personality nor a cohesively formed personality on which the new cultic personality is imposed. Aside from inherent temperament, basic character becomes affected and shaped by the child’s reaction to the cult experience. The cult personality is not superimposed, but becomes an aspect of the original personality.

I know that sounds depressing right? Read through some of the articles on the site, that may actually have made us stronger human beings. Or something. I’m still wrestling with this one.

In the cult, the charismatic leader is seen as extraordinary, all-powerful, and as an ideal being. The role of the parent often is usurped by the cult leader. Previously, I have written about the ways in which the cult leader interferes with parental authority over children (Goldberg, 2003). Rebellious, or even questioning, behavior typically is dealt with harshly, and this response serves as an example to all the cult members, especially children. Therefore, to lessen anxiety while in the cult, the growing child (to survive) often learns to be passive in response to the harsh, controlling nature of the cult leader.

Sound familiar? Yeah I thought so too.

As a result of this adaptation, the child may adopt a submissive, masochistic attitude as a response to the leader’s authority and, therefore, develop an internal experience of being insignificant or bad. This process might lead to the internalization of a harsh, critical conscience and a tendency toward self-blame.

Anyone else here a classic perfectionist? Yeah thought so. I’m actually an apathetic perfectionist. I know whatever I do I’m not going to get right anyway, so why bother trying? At least, that’s me on my bad days. Which I hope to have fewer of, in the years ahead.

When those who have been raised in cults leave that world in young adulthood, they have to enter an entirely new sociocultural environment—a wider world with new expectations and rules. These former cult members usually have tremendous difficulty with that adjustment. I have worked with several individuals who told me that entrance into the world outside the cult is complicated by the fact that their cultic upbringing has left them deprived of many coping skills to adapt to that task. They have difficulty adjusting to the problems that the external world presents and difficulty dealing with a variety of situations that others would find to be commonplace.

That definitely describes me, ten years ago, when entering the workforce. My poor co-workers.

The lack of mastery of these coping skills is exacerbated by the former cult member’s impoverished sense of identity, poor self-esteem, and fear of the outside world. The blurring of boundaries between the leader and the members and the need for idealization of the narcissistic leader have led them to a feeling that they are nothing without him or her. They believe that they need others to guide them. Furthermore, cult members are constantly exploited and shamed. (Shaw, 2003) This treatment leads many into believing they are failures because of their lack of success in the cult. This is true even if they left as a result of their recognition of cult hypocrisy or felt proud of their ability to leave a destructive environment. They may expect to fail in the outside world and go to some form of hell because they have left the perceived protection and path to holiness offered by the cult. As a result of cult suggestion as well as displacement of feelings from the cultic world onto the wider world, they see the world outside the cult as a dangerous place (Markowitz and Halperin, 1984).

“Be not conformed to this world.” “Be IN the world but not OF the world.”

Case Study: Tim

Tim’s parents joined a Bible-based cult when he was about three years old, and he was raised in his family’s home in the Midwest until he was 13. Although his parents continued to live in the family home, their life was controlled by cult edicts, and Tim was sent to religious schools within the community.

This large cultic group has a charismatic, living leader who establishes doctrine and demands obedience to himself. The rules of this church were harsh, and Tim was disciplined severely by both parents. Tim suspects that harsh treatment was consistent with his parent’s previous value system. He also believes, however, that their frustrations with the high demands of the cult intensified their poor treatment of him. He believes that their first allegiance always was to the cult.

I had a bit of different experience in that respect, in that the treatment was only from one parent, and not both of them, but I do have a lot of resentment remaining for the unconverted parent, for not getting us out of the situation.

Many children in cults experience strict behavior and physical abuse from their parents, according to anecdotal reports from former cultists and those who have written about this topic (Singer, 1995; Markowitz and Halperin, 1984; Langone & Eisenberg, 1993; Siskind, 2001). Children are seen as extensions and reflections of their parents, and parents are pressured to control their children. Because the parental tie to the cult leader needs to become stronger than the tie to their children, breaking the will of the children becomes acceptable and, sometimes, obligatory. (Goldberg, 2003).

That last sentence just takes your breath away doesn’t it?

Children raised in cults often grow up feeling hated and hateful because of this harsh treatment. They usually have experienced little help with regulating the strong affects that are stimulated by the cultic environment, particularly anxiety, anger, and grief. To survive, they often have had to suppress their emotions. Sometimes, as in the case of Tim, they appear to be out of touch. This might indicate that some degree of dissociation exists. However, overwhelming feelings periodically break through.

The last sentence describes me, in my younger years. I was particularly harsh to inanimate objects that did not live up to my expectations of them. Still am, sometimes, when I let my temper get away from me.

On a positive note, I think age mitigates this, in some ways: I’m just too tired to kick the object across the room anymore, so I just stand there and curse at it bitterly instead……Is that an improvement?

In the cult, members were encouraged to be passive, and idealization was encouraged past childhood, through adolescence, and into adulthood. Cult members were treated as children and discouraged from feeling as if they were competent.

I always said the parents were expected to be children themselves, which was why they were unable to effectively parent.

In therapy, I encourage former members to find solutions and take actions on their own behalf. Breaking through the passive orientation to life enhances their sense of self.

However, despite this initial passive presentation, I have found former cultists to be quite resourceful in numerous ways.

The parts I have highlighted is one of my goals for myself. I may let loose on the Internet, but I am far more like the description of the passive “Tim” in the case study, in real life.

As with many of those with whom I have worked who have been raised in cults, Tim had been poorly educated and was working well below his abilities. He began to focus on his difficulty dealing with one of his bosses. He believed that he was being exploited, and initially he felt that he was unable to change his situation. As we sorted out which of his reactions were based on realistic appraisals of his boss, he began to observe that some of these reactions might be coming from the past. This helped Tim negotiate with his boss more successfully. Eventually, he left the company and developed his own business.

I’m glad it worked out for Tim. I never attempted any kind of “negotiation” with the Levitical priesthood that passes themselves off as “Management” in the corporate culture these days, I just cut my losses and cut bait, as soon as they started up with me. And that includes my last job.

But maybe that isn’t a very realistic view of the world……….

I have found that former members often have a need to play out their guilt by unconsciously undermining their lives after the cult. Although Tim chose to leave his group, he continued to experience the threat of eternal damnation. Examination of post-cult guilt can help former cultists discover its origin and can lead to their ability to abandon it. However, as with many former cult members who have felt betrayed by religion, Tim has chosen a secular life.

The only guilt I have (and that I will always have) is that I was an anti-Semitic racist. I don’t know how exactly I’m supposed to “abandon” that, it’s a good thing I feel guilty about that!

Case Study: Sue

Sue describes the emotions that often are experienced by those raised in cults. Members are induced to use the splitting defense to see the cult world as all good and the outside world as evil. Markowitz and Halperin point out that splitting further occurs because cultists are induced to split off and isolate old affects (which are part of their earlier experiences). Doing this promotes a strong separation between old ties [and attitudes] and the cult (Markowitz and Halperin, 1984). Although this splitting process usually is applied to first-generation cultists, if it occurs early in adolescence, it can have a greater impact on the personality (which still is in development). Sue, like Tim, attempted to look “normal” on the outside, but they were painfully aware of feeling so different, and this created distance from others in their lives. Splitting off their past left each of them vulnerable to periods of depression and anxiety. Integration of the past into the present has allowed each of them to feel more acceptance of who they are, more in control of their actions. This integration also results in their having more energy to participate in life. Both Tim and Sue also revealed a split superego or conscience. They each struggled with following their own instincts to survive rather than strictly adhering to the moral code of the cult. Going against the rules left them feeling guilty and ashamed.

This case study addresses a patient who joined a Bible-based cult in adolescence. As stated at the beginning of the paper, “splitting” does not occur in second-generation adults born and raised in cultic groups, because we have no pre-cult “personality” to split off from, as indicated in the following paragraph.

Those who have been raised in cults also desire to experience all those activities that had been forbidden to them while in the cult. They often feel that they were robbed of a normal childhood, and they often engage in childish or adolescent activities. However, since they presently are adults, they often feel ashamed of these desires.

OK so I haven’t gone quite that far. But a lot of people tell me I look young for my age. A lot of that, I think, is that I unconsciously act young for my age (and I don’t usually catch myself doing it, until waaaaaaaay after the fact). According to some of the other articles on this site, that is actually a common presentation of those born and raised in cults, they appear to be younger than they are, and they relate to others from a younger perspective than their biological ages.

Of course, this shrink’s solution to that is “therapy”. How much of that is true, and how much of it is just “manufacturing victims” to drum up business for herself, is uncertain.

One day, Sue was very distraught as she entered my office. She had forgotten to take care of something at work that resulted in a missed deadline. She relentlessly kept berating herself. I told her that we weren’t angels walking on earth, and we are bound to make mistakes in our lives. My reaction surprised her. Later, she again was surprised when her supervisor did not condemn her for her mistake. In the cult, she had been taught that she was a sinner who must constantly repent and ask for forgiveness. But the paradox is that the goal in the cult is perfection: to be angels on earth. The cult left her with an anxious feeling that she could never catch up to perfection. As Sue felt less of a need to project a perfect image, her anxiety decreased. And as Sue’s superego became less harsh and uncompromising, she became less depressed. With less anxiety and depression, she became less involved in a whole range of potentially self-destructive behaviors to discharge her anxiety. And she became more able to feel pleasure in life.

I dunno about that “superego” psychobabble schtick, but being more able to feel pleasure in life would be a good thing, in my opinion. At least the conclusion of the paper ends on a positive note:

Conclusion

Nevertheless, these cases also reveal how those raised in cults can thrive once they have the opportunity to live richer and fuller lives. I am amazed by the perseverance these individuals and other former members have shown to improve their lives. Their demanding cult environments have encouraged them to be conscientious and hardworking individuals, and this pattern is reflected in the way they approach therapy. The cult leader has used the demand for perfection as a vehicle for exploiting members. It is important for them to become aware of how impossible and self-destructive the wish to attain perfection can be. The goal is to appreciate the hardworking aspects of their characters, but to lessen the anxiety and self-reproach attached to the need to do well. Therapy with these individuals needs to focus on helping them incorporate a more compassionate and loving attitude toward themselves. Accomplishing this task also will enhance their relationships with others. As they soften the harshness of their attitudes, they can begin to integrate the split-off parts of themselves that often lead to self-destructive behavior and depression.

Now, the paper does come at it from a “therapy is the answer” perspective, which is fine, that doesn’t negate the rest of the excellent points made in the paper.

That last sentence worries me though: According to this paper, we have no “split-off parts” because we have no “pre-cult personality” to go back to. I don’t know if she’s saying those born and raised in cults end up being psychobabbled for the rest of their lives, or what.

Anyway, I gleaned a lot of things to think about from this paper, and from the other articles on the site. Recommended reading, for all three of our readers.

So here’s the letter I sent dear ol’ Monte, after going to his website:

Purple Hymnal wrote:

You forgot to add the note about your father’s horrific illustrations being used in the WCG’s mass-distributed (amongst its members) Children’s Bible Stories series. These were distributed to most families with children, and most adult survivors of Armstrongism can still remember the stories (and their illustrations) quite clearly. These apocalyptic illustrations were also used in the Youth Bible Lessons, published by the church’s “Youth Educational Services”, referred to as “YES Lessons” by the members.
 
Someone posted your website address in the comments on a post on I Survived Armstrongism.

As promised, Monte’s response was swift. Even though it appears Monte may be several sandwiches shy of a picnic himself (all emphasis mine):

Monte Wolverton to me

Thanks for the note! Yes — I’m pretty well aware of where my dad’s work was published. You’ll be interested in The Wolverton Bible, coming out this December [Sorry no Mont I actually WON'T be interested at all in any way shape or fashion] published by Fantagraphics books. It will include all of his Bible Story, apocalyptic and humorous illustrations for the church — over 700 of them. Foreword by EC comics expert Grant Geissman and commentary and history of my dad’s involvment with the WCG by myself (thanks for the reminder — I need to add this to my website.). [I wonder just what it is, that Mont is going to "add" to his website? More apologetics, perhaps?]
You can pre order it at amazon.com here [A sales pitch? Really, Mont, did you not GET THE POINT of my original email? Hmmmmm methinks not.]
And this was released last year — an incredible collection of his work ["Incredible"? Yeah that's one word for it.]
The apocalyptic work and early Bible Story were among his best creations. They are indeed delightfully horriffic! I’m sure more than a few kids had nightmares from them — but it many ways they was[sic] mild compared to horror movies and comics.

[Oh, you're sure many kids had nightmares from the "delightfully horrific" illustrations, but you have no compassion or empathy for those kids at all. Why am I not surprised? Also: In many ways they WERE NOT mild, in any way, shape or form Mont. But you go on and keep living in that delusional WCG apologist's universe of yours.]

The Old Testament  and book of Revelation is full of blood, gore and violence — my father sought to portray it accurately — and he understood from his comic work that many kids love violence. Hey — I read his work growing up and so did my daughter — and my grandkids — and we’re all normal — relatively, anyway.

[Good for you Mont. Interestingly enough, Mont's reaction falls directly in line with WCG's official "blame the victim" policy, to wit: "It’s so true: Often our very best attempts at reconciliation and healing will be rebuffed. But don’t give up. Don’t let their problem become your problem!" Neil Earle, July - Sept. 2007 "Northern Light" And don't even get me started on the "many kids love violence" part --- it's making ME violent --- violently ILL.]

A few people have implied that I should be apologetic for my father’s work and how it affected them — and of course I’m not about to apologize. I think its great!

Best regards — Monte Wolverton 

Where can I possibly begin? I could refer Mont to Armstrongism: Beware of False Prophets‘ post, on how his dear ol’ Dad’s illustrations affected at least one person (and I’m certain affected many of us in the same manner).

I could tell Mont how the one image I will never get out of my mind will be his father’s hallmark dystonic pose of the afflicted “victims” in those gruesome apocalyptic illustrations; not to mention those omnipresent boils. And don’t even get me started on the omnipresent sword-slicing-through-the-gut scene that was featured in almost every battle story.

I could tell Mont about the adverse effects his father’s pictures had, when combined with the totalitarian, authoritarian cult they were espousing.

Something tells me it would all simply fall on deaf, clap-happy Jebus ears.

Just let me say this, Mont, if you are even listening:

I am not “implying” that you should be apologetic. Hell, I don’t even WANT you to apologize, nor do I expect you to apologize, for your father’s actions and beliefs.

All I want you to do for me, Mont, is to TELL THE TRUTH. These images which you describe as “great”, “awesome”, and “accurate”, were used to SUBJUGATE, TERRIFY, and THREATEN, children who had absolutely no choice or control over it. Think you can admit that to the world at large?

No? I didn’t think so.

Anyone else feel bad for Mont’s grandkids?

As opposed to light reading. I am working my way through the psychology paper Raised in Cultic Groups: The Impact on the Development of Certain Aspects of Character. I had bookmarked the document quite some time ago, and am just getting around to going through it now, a bit at a time. It is slow going, and provides a lot to think about.

So over the past few days I was in Boston for a conference, and left Aggie to have free reign here. I did not tell anyone but Aggie, because my contact information is easily available, and I did not want to make my apartment a target for burglary. But now that I am home, I can spill. Aggie did a good job, btw.

I went into some of the fluffier details on my other blog, so I won’t go into them again here. But I did notice a few things.

1) The feast memories are almost completely gone, or are very much muted now. The seminars and keynotes reminded me of services a little, but otherwise, I did not have any of the old feast stuff marring it. I was at the seminar for exactly what it was and nothing more. What has always struck me is how in a real conference you can ask questions, you can walk out if you want, or even skip entirely. The fact that the WCG didn’t allow that is now what strikes me as strange, not the fact that other conventions do. But as far as the trip goes, and stuffs… didn’t remind me of the feast at all, in any way, whatsoever. This is a Good Thing. I don’t want to be reminded of the feast every time I go somewhere, even though it was one of the highlights of my childhood.

2) I remained on a fairly even keel emotionally though the whole thing. No high highs, no deep lows. For me, that is a Big Deal. I also appear to be losing a great deal of my judgementalism, which is also good. And necessary.

3) I also had my first alcoholic beverage ever. It was a small amount of beer. No appreciable effect, and I didn’t much like the taste, but I wanted to get that particular demon off my back. It’s no big deal.

There are some other good things that I don’t want to go into here. But all in all, it was actually a very productive trip. And I don’t want to do it again for months. I have no idea how some people can spend so much time in an airport and on an airplane.

Things are improving.

I had a strange dream last night. Maybe not so much strange, as instructive.

I was infiltrating a group, playing the good little law-abiding sabbatarian, lying through my teeth, and the person introducing me around was leading me into something that looked like Gerry “Golden Shovel” Flurry’s edifice — people were refusing to acknowledge that it wasn’t finished, and pretending like “gawd’s house” was complete and finished, and they were enthusing about how the work was going to continue.

The person leading me around and telling the other members I was really OK, I wasn’t some kind of evil demon interloper, was waxing enthusiastic about how wonderful gawd’s house was, and couldn’t I see the parapets and the roof &c., when all they had done was the foundation and the walls to about ankle-height.

As the person nattered on and on, I looked around at the perfectly-landscaped grounds, when suddenly my eye fell on a patch of Amazon rainforest (What do you want from me? It was a dream, it’s not supposed to have any kind of consistent logic) and a tiny bright blue finch flew onto one of the broad leaves of one of the giant Jurassic Park-looking rainforest plants, and started singing. I wanted to disappear into this patch of beautiful rainforest that everyone around me was ignoring, or pretending didn’t exist. I wanted to follow the finch, as it flitted away about its business, and explore the forest.

My “guide” dragged me up towards the half-finished building that everyone was pretending was a grand edifice, bigger and better than the Auditorium was, back in the day.

There was some kind of market, with stalls and vendors, as we walked up to the “entrance” (guarded by two ushers, one of them taking attendance of course.) and there was one of the ex-WCG bloggers, with a stall set up.

(No I’m not going to tell you who. That isn’t the point.)

Anyway, come to find out, he’s selling Herbie’s bones and other relics from the church. My guide was undisturbed by this, with an attitude of “Oh, he’s mostly harmless,” etc., etc. even after I said ”I don’t think that’s right,” and was protesting it.

Then I woke up.

This was the first church-related dream I have had in a long, long, long, long, long loooooooooooooong time. I have to wonder if it isn’t because of where I have been spending most of my Internet “life”, on the ex-member boards and blogs and forums. Then I got thinking about the Net-surfing I did yesterday.

I toyed with the idea of Quakerism, back when I was trying on various theological hats, and non-theist Quakerism appealed to me, in my agnostic stage. Of course, now I’m a “confirmed atheist” so there you have it.

Or maybe not. Yesterday I was reading through some of the Quaker blogs I have bookmarked. Say what you will for them, regardless of which tradition they apply to their beliefs, they at least seem honest about their spirituality. And I don’t mean in that bible-thumping “Jesus is THE way and THE truth and THE life” (cognate for “THE church” and “THE truth”) sense, but from a “this is what happened to me today” perspective. They don’t preach, proselytize or otherwise exclude people who don’t share their exact theological outlook. (Thus why they accept non-theists into their religion.)

That is perhaps a generalized, broadly-painted picture. I won’t say there aren’t some glaring inconsistencies, because there are. I won’t say there aren’t hard-line conservatives that would make even the staunchest of Armstrongists blanch, because there are. But that’s neither here nor there.

The fact is, for all their infighting, arguing, and political splits, factions, and divisions, they still appear to “see” — something. There is something that they are tapping into, in a way that even they will admit words cannot adequately define.

So I’m back on the fence again. Colour me non-theist agnostic with panentheistic leanings. It’s more of a mouthful than just saying “I’m an atheist”, but at least it more accurately reflects where I am now.

Update: Just in case anyone mistakes the posting of this material as apologetic, or seeks to twist it as such, the highlighted portions of this material point EXACTLY to the portions of the text that ENCOURAGED, CAUSED, and IMPLEMENTED CHILD ABUSE by parents in the Worldwide Church of God.

I never knew ol’ Arch personally, but he had a personal influence on my most formative years. Yes, brethren, I speak of course about the 1974 booklet, “Teach Your Children About God”. I never read this booklet myself. but reading through it now, it is painfully apparent that it was taken as gospel (literally) by the converted parent.

Frontispiece Text 

Never before has the younger generation been in greater need of knowledge about God and His law. This booklet gives you concrete, usable guidelines for teaching your small children about God, about creation, about God’s plan and about life.

What is God Like?

God holds you responsible for teaching your children about His way. You personally will determine to a tremendous degree what type of individual your child will grow up to be. The Bible states: “Teach a child to choose the right path, and when he is older he will remain upon it.” (Prov. 22:6, The Living Bible).

The great Creator God has granted you your children. He has given you Godlike powers over them — you have the power to mold and shape attitudes that will remain with the them the rest of their lives.

Get to know God by reading the Bible in an organized manner. Our free booklet Read the Book shows how. Send for your copy.

Give your child a simple concept of God’s strength by pointing out certain parts of the creation that demonstrate His power. (Read Job 37 – 41, Isaiah 40, and many of the Psalms. These and many other scriptures describe God’s power and authority through the physical creation.)

For instance, in pointing out a mountain to your child you might explain that God not only created the mountains, but also has the power to move and shake them as a person might shake out a blanket. (Amos 4:13; Joel 3:16)

Even this bit of knowledge is too much of a “hunk” for a four-year-old, so I reduce it to terms he will understand. At his tender age, he really doesn’t comprehend the problems of moving a mountain.

But he is very familiar with the effort he must expend in picking up heavy (to him) rocks and moving them. [Or if "he" is not, the "godly" parent will make sure that "he" is.]

Therefore I tell him that God can not only move large mountains, but also very large rocks. As he musters all the strength in his little forty-pound body to pick up a ten- or fifteen-pound stone, I often point to a giant boulder weighing multiple tons and casually explain to him that God has the strength to move that boulder much more easily than he is moving his fifteen-pound monolith. At that point he is very impressed with God’s power, to say the least! [And I pity poor Arch's four-year-old son.]

Do you see now how important it is to explain things in terms your child will grasp?

Psalm 29:3-5 likens God’s voice to thunder — another excellent physical phenomena conveying an aspect of God’s physical power.

Most of us at one time have experienced a thunderstorm so violent that we felt like crawling under the table. It is an awe-inspiring demonstration.

Just remember, while you’re under that table, take time out to give Johnny or Janey a few reminders about God’s power!

God has the same general form and shape that human beings do — a head, arms, hands, legs, feet, etc. Many scriptures throughout the Bible mentions God’s eyes, ears, hands, face, etc. (see Numbers 11:23; II Chronicles 16:9; Job 40:9; Psalm 104:29; Isaiah 59:1). There are dozens of other scriptures you can find through just a little research. Invest in a Bible concordance. For just a few dollars, you can search out many such verses in a hurry.

II Timothy 1:7 typifies God’s positive and concerned attitude towards us. God has a healthy, optimistic, confident outlook and approach to life. He leads a life full of joy. Jeremiah 32:41 mentions this aspect of His character in describing His future dealings with His people. Luke 15: 10 – 32 mentions that there is great joy in heaven when an individual truly repents and begins to live God’s way of life.

The parable of the prodigal son shows God’s boundless compassion toward the repentant sinner. (Luke 15).

About The Bible

Beware of letting subtle errors or misconceptions creep into your teaching. Don’t rely on books about the Bible. [I'm sorry, and this booklet was what, again?] Many “Bible story” books for children are saturated with unscriptural concepts, or vie for the child’s interest with exciting or violent fiction like cheap novels or comic books. [Your gagging transcriber notes: This text was published quite a few years before Basil's Bible Stories For Easily-Horrified Children began to be mass-distributed by "the church".] Biblical incidents are often taken out of context. Their real connection with the very purpose of life is often ignored. [More Bible jigsaw bullshit.]

And even pictures are misleading — biblical characters usually appear in various supposedly “spiritual” positions, generally with arms outstretched towards a rock, tree, or cloud, with far-off, contemplative expression on their faces. But in reality, biblical persons were DYNAMIC, ACTIVE, FORCEFUL! And that is what you should convey ro your children.

As your child grows older — say when he’s eight or ten — teach him how the Proverbs relate to his everyday life. This will take some considerable forethought on your part in some cases. But take just one proverb at a time — such as Proverbs 15:18.

Before attempting to teach your eight- or ten-year-old this lesson, sit down with pencil and paper and think of all the various applications this proverb may have in his relationship with other children, with his teachers at school, with you — in other words, with any and everyone he normally comes in contact with.

Think of WHY and HOW your child will benefit by inculcating the principle of this proverb into his life. Write these points down and you will have a very effective Bible study. [Transcriber asks: Anyone else here ever had to actually do one of these "parent-directed" Bible studies?!]

Another way to teach the Proverbs is to create hypothetical situations, then ask your child to explain the correct course of action based upon just one proverb. This method stimulates your child to make God’s laws an actual part of his thinking.

Emphasize over and over in different ways how beneficial and wonderful it is to obey God’s commandments. Stress to your child how GOOD they are for him. Always stress the positive — the GOOD life that obedience produces. Remember, you are molding your child’s concept of God and His way.

When you describe how Adam and Eve disobeyed God, stress how they had to leave the garden and were very unhappy because of their disobedience. Then relate this to your child’s everyday life by explaining that obedience to God always brings good things! And disobedience produces bad things. You can do this in numerous facets of his daily life. This is a language he understands.

How to Pray

While memorized prayers may serve as a daily reminder of God, we must remember that Christ cautioned His disciples against memorization or repetition of prayer in Matthew 6:7. Teach your children to think when praying — to say what’s on his or her mind. Let them know what prayer is — talking to God as we would respectfully talk to our physical father.

(Incidentally, it is always a good idea to teach your boy or girl to pray for other people regularly — perhaps for friends and relatives. Otherwise prayer can become totally self-oriented.) …. Also, remember to teach your children to ask God to heal when either they or you are ill. This will train them to trust God and look to Him as their Healer.

4. Be sure your children approach prayer respectfully. Don’t allow them to make a game of it. If you find them praying in a “sing-song” voice, or intentionally saying silly things, simply stop them with the reminder that God does not want us to talk that way to him. Then allow them to continue praying — respectfully.

And remember, when you have questions, doubts, or problems about teaching this vital subject, you pray about them. Ask God for the answers. He’ll give you the guidance and wisdom you need.

Also, if you happen to be in contact with the Ambassador College representative (an ordained minister of the Worldwide Church of God) in your area, he will be happy to help.

God’s Plan

To put it in a nutshell, God’s purpose is for us to eventually be like Him — literally! (I John 3:1,2.) We are created in His physical form and shape. He gives us limited Godlike powers and fantastic resources and faculties for a purpose — to control, channel, and use them in developing Godlike character — the character to make consistently right choices which produce happiness. This is the way we meet God’s standards and qualify for His free gift [Free with this box! No, wait.....] of eternal life in His family. Do you see what a fantastic purpose and future we have?

If this is your first glimpse of this marvellous truth, you may need more information. If so, our attractively printed booklet Why Were You Born? makes plain and understandable the transcendent purpose and meaning of human existence. Write for your free copy.

What about your children? Do they understand why they were born? They should! Parents ought to teach them the answer to the most basic question in life.

Children deserve to know.

And it’s simple to explain.Here’s how!

You could ask your child some very easy questions you are sure he can answer and grasp easily — such as, “Why did God make chickens?” If your youngster doesn’t know, simply explain that God made chickens basically to give us meat and eggs to eat. Emphasize that this is the basic reason for chickens’ existence.

In like manner, you can point out that cows give us milk and meat, sheep give us wool and meat [Don't forget pigs give us meat and --- oh wait.....], horses are for pleasure and work, etc. [Get yer filthy minds out of the gutter people!] Remember to show that each animal has a specific purpose.

Then you might ask your child, “Why did God make people? Why did He make you?” Of course your child will falter here — he won’t know. This is your opportunity to simply explain to him that God made us to someday be like Him. (Do you see the importance of teaching children what the real God is like as mentioned in Chapter One?)

Obviously, your child will not really grasp the meaning of being like God [Transcriber's note: And you better pray he better not repeat what little he does grasp, outside of the family home!] It is best not to go beyond a very simple explanation. ["Because I said so!"]

Here is the key. Plant in your child’s mind the progression of going from child to adult to God. Impress on his mind the necessity to obey God’s laws and live His way of life that produces happiness in order to qualify to be God. Thus, you are applying God’s plan of salvation in your child’s daily life.

Make use of various experiences and situations throughout the day to mention various aspects of God’s purpose.

“To your child, you parents are beings totally alien to his own nature. You are, in every sense of the word, gods [emphasis mine]. [Preceding note was intrinsic to the text.] Your motives are mysterious, your methods incomprehensible. You are to be loved and feared more than anybody or anything else.” (Family Circle, August 1972, p. 28)

Think about that. You possess awesome authority over your child — you hold his future in his hands, to a great extent. You as a parent are the potter — your young boy or girl is a piece of very malleable clay. God will judge each one of us according to how well we mold and teach these little minds.

And those are the low-lights from “Teach Your Children About God”. Then we have, surprise, surprise, on the endpaper, an ad for Spanky’s book The Plain Truth About Child-Rearing:

So thanks, Arch Bradley, for turning a generation of parents into authoritarian, fear-mongering, totalitarian theocrats. And double-thanks for leading them in to “continuing their studies” with Spanky Meredith’s master opus, The Plain Truth About Child-Rearing. (He ain’t called Spanky for no good reason you know.) Thank you, Arch, for this wonderful “contribution” you made, and this powerful influence you had, on my most formative years.

And fuck you, Arch Bradley. Fuck you to the fuckingest fuckingly fucked-up fucker’s fuckingdom.

Just found this on my desktop, and remembered that I was going to do a post about it, but I never got around to it. (Plus, I need to let the post about By The Waters of Babylon on the PH percolate a bit  more.)

Update: For anyone who misconstrues the nature of the posting of this or any church material on this site, let me spell it out clearly for you: The parts I have highlighted reflect the highly ANTI-SEMITIC, RACIST, PREJUDICED beliefs that members of the Worldwide Church of God held fast to in the 1980s. We were fucking bastards.

This is NOT an apologetic meant to SUPPORT the text included herein, it is an absolute 100% REFUTATION of the RACIST SCUM that we believed.

So. “God’s Sacred Calendar ‘86-’87″. Where to begin?

Needless to say, “God’s Sacred Calendar” was the only one allowed in the house. ‘86-’87 was a calendar year of particular note, given that it was a “farewell” calendar to “the end-time Elijah”, “god’s Apostle”, otherwise referred to in the “Behind the Work” Feast films as “Ambassador Without Portfolio”.

Basically Armstrong bribed world leaders and politicians with expensive gifts of Steuben crystal, so he would have a photo-op with the personage, and we feckless sheeple would buy hook, line, and sinker, the story that ol’ Herbie was “preaching God’s gospel” to the person he was glad-handing in the picture.

It was all bullshit of course. Carefully-crafted artifice worthy of your average marketing major.

“Ambassador For World Peace” — what unsuspecting visitors to our home were unaware of, was that “world peace” was to come about only after a particularly brutal Armageddon occurred “in this generation”. (The church stopped predicting hard-and-fast dates after 1975.)

“The official portrait by Desmond Grove” aside, let us consider the opening text of “God’s Sacred Calendar ‘86-’87″ (all bolding is my own; italics are intrinsic to the text), and every sacred calendar published annually:

Here is the true calendar for all mankind. Its principles go back to the very first chapter of the Bible, where the sun and moon were appointed to be for signs, seasons, days and years (Gen. 1:14).

This is the calendar Israel used when God led the nation out of Egypt. It has been in continual use for more than 3,400 years since. In all major respects except one, it is the same calendar used from the days of the earliest patriarchs to the exodus from Egypt.

This calendar has been called the “Hebrew Calendar,” but it long antedated the Hebrew peoples — having its origins in the days of Enos, Seth and Adam when men first determined the average length of the lunar month.

Here, combined with God’s true calendar, is the Roman calendar. The Roman calendar begins a new year in the dead of winter, its months without reference to the moon — all in contrast to God’s calendar.

But, isn’t the Roman calendar of Christian origin, some will ask? Doesn’t it have the approval of almost all Christian sects? History answers: “Our [Roman] calendar is not Christian in origin. It descends directly from the Egyptians, who originated the 12-month year, 365-day system. A pagan Egyptian scientist, Sosigenes, suggested this plan to the pagan emperor Julius Caesar, who directed that it go into effect throughout the Roman Empire in 45 B.C. As adopted it indicated its pagan origin by the names of the months — called after Janus, Maia, Juno, etc. The days were not named but numbered by a complicated system involving Ides, Nones and Calends. It was not until 321 A.D. that the seven-day-week feature was added, when the Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity. Oddly enough for his weekdays he chose pagan names which are still used.” From “Journal of Calendar Reform,” Sept. 1953, footnote p. 128.

Further study brings one to the realization that the entire Roman calendar is of pagan origin with the single exception of the seven-day-week feature. Ironically the “Journal of Calendar Reform” would have men give up this feature also by adopting their World Calendar. This proposed calendar contains one day each year (two in leap years) that is not counted as a day of the week. The seven-day cycle of the week, which has persisted since creation, would then be broken. It would be a totally heathen calendar.

God Ordained This Way

A new sacred year commences about the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere. “This month [Abib or Nisan] shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you” (Ex. 12:2). The beginning of this month and all of God’s months basically correspond with the appearance of the first faint crescent of the new moon in the west just after sundown. (Traditionally observed from Palestine.) The astronomical new moon calculated for the United States is, in general, a day or two earlier.

The word month means moon. A new month begins with a new moon. At first quarter the month is one quarter gone; at full moon half a month has passed. Months have 30 and 29 days alternately with a few minor variations on some years. Seven years of a nineteen-year-cycle have a 13th month called Adar II.

A third unit of time, the day, was correctly observed by most people till only a few hundred years ago. The proper time to end one day and begin another is in the evening at sunset as the last rays of direct sunlight fade from the countryside. Notice the description of the Day of Atonement occurring on the tenth day of the month: “In the ninth day of the month at even [evening], from even until even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath” (Lev. 23:27-32). Man has changed to beginning the day at midnight.

The division of days was correctly understood at Christ’s time. On one occasion a Sabbath was drawing to a close. Those who wished healing waited, and “when the sun was setting all they that had any sick with diverse diseases brought them unto him,” not being aware of the fact that Christ would have healed on the Sabbath day also. (Luke 4:40). Mark records that they came to be healed “when the sun did set” (Mark 1:32).

A comparison of Leviticus 22:7 with Leviticus 15:5 gives the exact moment for a new day — “when the sun is down”.

The final division of time, the week, with a seventh day set apart for rest and holy use, has been preserved by its continual observance among God’s people.

The annual festivals God gave to Israel all occur on fixed days of the month, except for the feast of firstfruits or Pentecost. It occurs on a specific day of the week and is determined in the following manner. In the days of the Levitical priesthood a sheaf or omer of grain (barley) was cut very shortly after the sun set at the end of the Sabbath, in the early moments of the first day of the week. This first day after the weekly Sabbath always fell during the Days of Unleavened Bread, and it was the first of 50 days of the spring harvest (Pentecost means “fiftieth”) which culminated in the feast of firstfruits or Pentecost. Pentecost is therefore always to be celebrated on the first day of the week, several weeks after the cutting of the sheaf of omer or grain. It always falls in the third month — Sivan.

General Information

In brief, God’s holy days are to be kept the following way. On two of them no work is to be done: the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement (a fast day). On the following six no servile work is to be done (food, however, may be prepared): the first Day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15), the last Day of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Last Great Day (Tishri 22). The Passover, Nisan 14, is observed with the service of footwashing followed by taking the symbols of unleavened bread and wine. This is the only festival not designated a Sabbath.

For Christians these holy days are convocations or commanded assemblies. Historians of the early Christian era record that these days often misnamed “Jewish holidays,” were kept by the true Church of God with a new spirit and a fuller understanding.

Holy days for several years have been calculated to aid you in your plans to attend services and in your employment schedule.

Information as to where these meetings will be held and how you may attend may be had by writing to Herbert W. Armstrong at the office nearest you.

Information on the meaning of the annual festivals is available in the free booklet Pagan Holidays or God’s Holy Days — Which?

And that is “god’s seven annual sabbaths” in a nutshell. You will note the highlighted anti-Semitic passages throughout the text. And yet we were instructed from the pulpit to tell “the worldly” (on the rare occasion that we could not get out of speaking of the church we attended) that we kept “the Jewish holidays”.

The quoted text was consistent from calendar to calendar, yearly. The ‘86-’87 calendar, predictably, contains the bulk of Armstrong’s more prestigious photo-op moments. I seem to recall earlier calendars that were illustrated by Basil Wolverton, or stock church images (recycled from various Envoys no doubt), but I may be misremembering that, and I have no source material to double-check.

Blindsight. We told the world we “kept the Jewish holidays”, but within the walls of our own homes, we believed that the Jewish people didn’t even know how to calculate their own calendar.