|
Post by unwrittenrules on Jun 9, 2023 21:01:02 GMT
The layers of control are numerous and for each person and situation they are different. Watching ‘Happy Shiny People’ made me think of ways the PRC control people, and one way of control is Catechism. Memorizing 10 answers and a memory verse word for word. Performance I thought even way back then when the way I had to say it and it didn’t make sense to me, but I could not say it in an easier way. Every word had to be spoken just as written. And now I see the performance was to make sure I was in control. Did they really care that I understood the questions and answers? No, I don’t think so, but the point was making sure I did it. Threatening punishment to hide God’s Word in a child’s heart is so messed up.
I am fascinated about the teachings Bill Gothard promoted and made public, because I feel like they were the “unwritten rules” in the PRC. It amazes me that PRC didn’t have the Wisdom Teachings and yet I was taught those same lessons. I was taught to judge but not by doing a workbook. Instead I was taught through the fear culture. It was what people said or didn’t say. It was how people acted or didn’t act. And I am not the only one who knows these “unwritten rules.” Fear is such a powerful tool of control.
|
|
|
Post by Feminist on Jun 9, 2023 22:24:56 GMT
“All we had to do was talk” That was so powerful!
|
|
|
Post by healing on Jun 10, 2023 13:44:51 GMT
The layers of control are numerous and for each person and situation they are different. Watching ‘Happy Shiny People’ made me think of ways the PRC control people, and one way of control is Catechism. Memorizing 10 answers and a memory verse word for word. Performance I thought even way back then when the way I had to say it and it didn’t make sense to me, but I could not say it in an easier way. Every word had to be spoken just as written. And now I see the performance was to make sure I was in control. Did they really care that I understood the questions and answers? No, I don’t think so, but the point was making sure I did it. Threatening punishment to hide God’s Word in a child’s heart is so messed up. I am fascinated about the teachings Bill Gothard promoted and made public, because I feel like they were the “unwritten rules” in the PRC. It amazes me that PRC didn’t have the Wisdom Teachings and yet I was taught those same lessons. I was taught to judge but not by doing a workbook. Instead I was taught through the fear culture. It was what people said or didn’t say. It was how people acted or didn’t act. And I am not the only one who knows these “unwritten rules.” Fear is such a powerful tool of control. Interesting comment. The important thing was performance (obedience, compliance), not understanding. Memorization of words that didn’t make sense to me as a child. And some very scary things too as I recall. I memorized the Long, KJV of the catechism in FULL. Cannot tell you to this day decades later what it says aside from the 1st Q &A. I performed well at the time, but it was not a good use of time because I was not taught the spirit and application of what I was learning…too much time was wasted on cramming in more information. I also watched the Shiny Happy People documentary. The part that rang true for me was when they were talking about how no one could have a real emotion or talk about what was going on inside / their struggles. This is the foundation of so much of the bigger abuse problems. Everyone has to live the roll that has been assigned to you, don’t complain, don’t speak up. Be happy. Be an exemplary family with obedient children because we represent the true church. Don’t bring shame to your family or church. In teaching instant obedience, it teaches dishonesty to the children. That it is better to lie. That there is no safety. No room to disagree. It is the same recipe. IBLP, PRC, or any other group trying to gain control over others…breaks my heart.
|
|
|
Post by blindrealist on Jun 10, 2023 14:54:02 GMT
I've been fascinated by this discussion, but I'm really skeptical on a couple fronts.
I don't really think that the PRC got this stuff from Gothard. I think it's older and with secular origins, just like with IRBC and Jay Adams, and focus on the family.
Anybody remember Dr. Spock's baby book?
My main skepticism is that somehow this abuse is inherent in all past religious training of children, like catechism and worship. I think it comes from secular behavioral psychology (not cognitive) that was helped out by the dominant philosophy (post WWII, atomic age, space age) of creating a new man and a new society that would be perfectly controlled and perfect. Church and Christians just adapted it to their own systems. This is where the abuse enters in--too much control and power taken and assumed by the masters entrusted to bring about this perfection.
Not to excuse the PRC where its so rampant and sytemic, but I think its important to understand how prevalent it is in other places. One of the reasons for shutting down mental institutions was the abuse of patients. Also shows that the PRC is not as antithetical as it claims to be. Gertrude Hoeksema's book "Peaceable Fruit" is more psychological than biblical.
|
|
|
Post by cannalily on Jun 10, 2023 15:10:53 GMT
I've been fascinated by this discussion, but I'm really skeptical on a couple fronts. I don't really think that the PRC got this stuff from Gothard. I think it's older and with secular origins, just like with IRBC and Jay Adams, and focus on the family. Anybody remember Dr. Spock's baby book? My main skepticism is that somehow this abuse is inherent in all past religious training of children, like catechism and worship. I think it comes from secular behavioral psychology (not cognitive) that was helped out by the dominant philosophy (post WWII, atomic age, space age) of creating a new man and a new society that would be perfectly controlled and perfect. Church and Christians just adapted it to their own systems. This is where the abuse enters in--too much control and power taken and assumed by the masters entrusted to bring about this perfection. Not to excuse the PRC where its so rampant and sytemic, but I think its important to understand how prevalent it is in other places. One of the reasons for shutting down mental institutions was the abuse of patients. Also shows that the PRC is not as antithetical as it claims to be. Gertrude Hoeksema's book "Peaceable Fruit" is more psychological than biblical. I think if you were to just take a step back, you'd see that all of it is simply a game to screw people over. Regardless of how badly, it's still a control mechanism. If the PRC would have thought of this, they would have included this in their cult net as well. ...maybe it's just a generation out. You know, like the remnants of remnants... hence the doctrine of the angels. Whatever the heck that is...
|
|
|
Post by prnolonger on Jun 10, 2023 15:28:18 GMT
I've been fascinated by this discussion, but I'm really skeptical on a couple fronts. I don't really think that the PRC got this stuff from Gothard. I think it's older and with secular origins, just like with IRBC and Jay Adams, and focus on the family. Anybody remember Dr. Spock's baby book? My main skepticism is that somehow this abuse is inherent in all past religious training of children, like catechism and worship. I think it comes from secular behavioral psychology (not cognitive) that was helped out by the dominant philosophy (post WWII, atomic age, space age) of creating a new man and a new society that would be perfectly controlled and perfect. Church and Christians just adapted it to their own systems. This is where the abuse enters in--too much control and power taken and assumed by the masters entrusted to bring about this perfection. Not to excuse the PRC where its so rampant and sytemic, but I think its important to understand how prevalent it is in other places. One of the reasons for shutting down mental institutions was the abuse of patients. Also shows that the PRC is not as antithetical as it claims to be. Gertrude Hoeksema's book "Peaceable Fruit" is more psychological than biblical. Hard disagree. It's not about any particular psychology or secular/non-secular ideology or origin point where abuse entered in. It's about power. It's not about religion or non-religion either. Just power. Power to gratify your own wants by exerting that power over other people, who you see not as other people but as your objects to use for your own gratification. There's rampant sexual abuse in Hollywood, for instance. The idea of the "casting couch" has been a thing forever. Harvey Weinstein had power. Say yes, get what you want. Say no, get blackballed from future opportunities. It's what happened to Brendan Frasier. Think about David and King Solomon. How many wives and concubines did they have? Do you think those women felt like they could say no? That they had equal say? The Bible isn't even unclear here when it comes to Bathsheba. David saw her. He lusted after her. He wanted her. So he took what he wanted. He had the power to do so and he did. When someone tried to confront that, David used his power to cover it up. It's not about secular origins. It's about power and not viewing other human beings as fully and authentically human. That simple.
|
|
|
Post by blindrealist on Jun 10, 2023 15:34:17 GMT
I've been fascinated by this discussion, but I'm really skeptical on a couple fronts. I don't really think that the PRC got this stuff from Gothard. I think it's older and with secular origins, just like with IRBC and Jay Adams, and focus on the family. Anybody remember Dr. Spock's baby book? My main skepticism is that somehow this abuse is inherent in all past religious training of children, like catechism and worship. I think it comes from secular behavioral psychology (not cognitive) that was helped out by the dominant philosophy (post WWII, atomic age, space age) of creating a new man and a new society that would be perfectly controlled and perfect. Church and Christians just adapted it to their own systems. This is where the abuse enters in--too much control and power taken and assumed by the masters entrusted to bring about this perfection. Not to excuse the PRC where its so rampant and sytemic, but I think its important to understand how prevalent it is in other places. One of the reasons for shutting down mental institutions was the abuse of patients. Also shows that the PRC is not as antithetical as it claims to be. Gertrude Hoeksema's book "Peaceable Fruit" is more psychological than biblical. I think if you were to just take a step back, you'd see that all of it is simply a game to screw people over. Regardless of how badly, it's still a control mechanism. If the PRC would have thought of this, they would have included this in their cult net as well. ...maybe it's just a generation out. You know, like the remnants of remnants... hence the doctrine of the angels. Whatever the heck that is... I think both of your last posts are much to the point.
To go really deep the past decades have been deep into group identification and manipulation. Independent thought, investigation, assertion of individual rights, autonomy and responsibility, healthy skepticism have all been nearly criminalized. Its all about systems and control. The only security and safety is unreserved trust in one system or another run by persons who've assumed superiority in one way or another. Its why denominations are the way they are. Outside of the control you can't really exist. Its also why a denomination like the PRC really doesn't run on the Bible either. It really runs on a code that is actually foreign to the Bible. The heart doesn't matter. The members don't matter. What matters is the system and keeping it running and believable. (Why a third-party investigation is such a threat.)
Why Andewey is able to keep it going. He's a dominant individual. Someone to believe in.
|
|
|
Post by blindrealist on Jun 10, 2023 15:43:15 GMT
I've been fascinated by this discussion, but I'm really skeptical on a couple fronts. I don't really think that the PRC got this stuff from Gothard. I think it's older and with secular origins, just like with IRBC and Jay Adams, and focus on the family. Anybody remember Dr. Spock's baby book? My main skepticism is that somehow this abuse is inherent in all past religious training of children, like catechism and worship. I think it comes from secular behavioral psychology (not cognitive) that was helped out by the dominant philosophy (post WWII, atomic age, space age) of creating a new man and a new society that would be perfectly controlled and perfect. Church and Christians just adapted it to their own systems. This is where the abuse enters in--too much control and power taken and assumed by the masters entrusted to bring about this perfection. Not to excuse the PRC where its so rampant and sytemic, but I think its important to understand how prevalent it is in other places. One of the reasons for shutting down mental institutions was the abuse of patients. Also shows that the PRC is not as antithetical as it claims to be. Gertrude Hoeksema's book "Peaceable Fruit" is more psychological than biblical. Hard disagree. It's not about any particular psychology or secular/non-secular ideology or origin point where abuse entered in. It's about power. It's not about religion or non-religion either. Just power. Power to gratify your own wants by exerting that power over other people, who you see not as other people but as your objects to use for your own gratification. There's rampant sexual abuse in Hollywood, for instance. The idea of the "casting couch" has been a thing forever. Harvey Weinstein had power. Say yes, get what you want. Say no, get blackballed from future opportunities. It's what happened to Brendan Frasier. Think about David and King Solomon. How many wives and concubines did they have? Do you think those women felt like they could say no? That they had equal say? The Bible isn't even unclear here when it comes to Bathsheba. David saw her. He lusted after her. He wanted her. So he took what he wanted. He had the power to do so and he did. When someone tried to confront that, David used his power to cover it up. It's not about secular origins. It's about power and not viewing other human beings as fully and authentically human. That simple. Good points. I think its also true that we're entering a new era of slavery that's built on a broader objectification not just of women, but of entire populations and societies. I think of Egypt and Babylon, but with the added present benefit of mind control. I think I'd prefer Babylon and Egypt. At least you had the freedom of mind to know you were a slave!
The cognitive dissonance of Hollywood and the PRC compare really well. Maybe Hollywood has less an excuse because they've been pretending so long to be on the side of women. Still do.
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on Jun 10, 2023 17:12:27 GMT
Hard disagree. It's not about any particular psychology or secular/non-secular ideology or origin point where abuse entered in. It's about power. It's not about religion or non-religion either. Just power. Power to gratify your own wants by exerting that power over other people, who you see not as other people but as your objects to use for your own gratification. There's rampant sexual abuse in Hollywood, for instance. The idea of the "casting couch" has been a thing forever. Harvey Weinstein had power. Say yes, get what you want. Say no, get blackballed from future opportunities. It's what happened to Brendan Frasier. Think about David and King Solomon. How many wives and concubines did they have? Do you think those women felt like they could say no? That they had equal say? The Bible isn't even unclear here when it comes to Bathsheba. David saw her. He lusted after her. He wanted her. So he took what he wanted. He had the power to do so and he did. When someone tried to confront that, David used his power to cover it up. It's not about secular origins. It's about power and not viewing other human beings as fully and authentically human. That simple. Good points. I think its also true that we're entering a new era of slavery that's built on a broader objectification not just of women, but of entire populations and societies. I think of Egypt and Babylon, but with the added present benefit of mind control. I think I'd prefer Babylon and Egypt. At least you had the freedom of mind to know you were a slave!
The cognitive dissonance of Hollywood and the PRC compare really well. Maybe Hollywood has less an excuse because they've been pretending so long to be on the side of women. Still do.
I think the PRC has less an excuse because they've been pretending to be on God's side, have been since the age of silent films, which, by the way, is how they like their women. Silent. It is about power, especially of men. If the PRC were on women's side the 3rd party investigation would be a shoo-in. As it stands, it's a threat to their power.
|
|
|
Post by blessed2be on Jun 10, 2023 17:21:53 GMT
Good points. I think its also true that we're entering a new era of slavery that's built on a broader objectification not just of women, but of entire populations and societies. I think of Egypt and Babylon, but with the added present benefit of mind control. I think I'd prefer Babylon and Egypt. At least you had the freedom of mind to know you were a slave!
The cognitive dissonance of Hollywood and the PRC compare really well. Maybe Hollywood has less an excuse because they've been pretending so long to be on the side of women. Still do.
I think the PRC has less an excuse because they've been pretending to be on God's side, have been since the age of silent films, which, by the way, is how they like their women. Silent. It is about power, especially of men. If the PRC were on women's side the 3rd party investigation would be a shoo-in. As it stands, it's a threat to their power. Yes, they want their women silent. There is even a post on the PR discussion page on Facebook from a Kleyn saying husband's should tell their wives to stop posting because it's not doing anything. That is many of the male voices in PR, and the thing is women "liked" his comment.
|
|
|
Post by leslin on Jun 10, 2023 18:48:51 GMT
Are PR people watching this documentary? If they are wouldn’t they just argue “this is why we don’t homeschool?”
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on Jun 10, 2023 20:40:11 GMT
Are PR people watching this documentary? If they are wouldn’t they just argue “this is why we don’t homeschool?” Probably, as most are sorely lacking in critical thinking skills.
|
|
|
Post by sharikasten on Jun 11, 2023 5:05:08 GMT
I think the PRC has less an excuse because they've been pretending to be on God's side, have been since the age of silent films, which, by the way, is how they like their women. Silent. It is about power, especially of men. If the PRC were on women's side the 3rd party investigation would be a shoo-in. As it stands, it's a threat to their power. Yes, they want their women silent. There is even a post on the PR discussion page on Facebook from a Kleyn saying husband's should tell their wives to stop posting because it's not doing anything. That is many of the male voices in PR, and the thing is women "liked" his comment. Disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by endthesilence on Jun 13, 2023 20:38:13 GMT
I think the PRC has less an excuse because they've been pretending to be on God's side, have been since the age of silent films, which, by the way, is how they like their women. Silent. It is about power, especially of men. If the PRC were on women's side the 3rd party investigation would be a shoo-in. As it stands, it's a threat to their power. Yes, they want their women silent. There is even a post on the PR discussion page on Facebook from a Kleyn saying husband's should tell their wives to stop posting because it's not doing anything. That is many of the male voices in PR, and the thing is women "liked" his comment. Kleyn Senior. The guy is like methuselah years old, he didn't get the memo that women's rights is a thing now.
|
|
|
Post by cannalily on Jun 13, 2023 22:08:40 GMT
Yes, they want their women silent. There is even a post on the PR discussion page on Facebook from a Kleyn saying husband's should tell their wives to stop posting because it's not doing anything. That is many of the male voices in PR, and the thing is women "liked" his comment. Kleyn Senior. The guy is like methuselah years old, he didn't get the memo that women's rights is a thing now. LOL
|
|