Posted by Thinker on February 19, 2015 at 17:39:25
In Reply to: Re: a little context posted by Tom on February 19, 2015 at 15:17:45:
Wow, that's quite an authoritative reply coming from someone who was never a member.
In your post you present a conclusive analysis of the motives involved, starting with "They need..." Remember that the "they" you are talking about is me. I was once there. In all the years I spent in the cult, in all the situations I was in, I never felt the need you described.
Naturally, our experiences as ex-members do vary considerably. But while as ex-members we may not be familiar with every cult event that has transpired in every corner of the globe, we are well familiar with most of the intricate details of the inner workings. Some of us were even in the inner circles such as WS, where we experienced things far crazier than the average rank-and-file member.
So if you don't mind, I was directing my question to and expecting a reply from an insider, a fellow ex-member. "excog" seems to be the only one familiar with this so it's best he/she reply.
I can assure you, this affidavit signing about freely joining was not standard practice and did not feature large in the cult. I am certain that it was related mainly to discrediting "backsliders" or detractors. In other words, it was never a standard practice or a requirement to sign an affidavit for the sole purpose of proving that members joined voluntarily. If it happened at all, it was probably consequential and limited to court cases such as the major Ward case in the UK, etc.
Replies to this Post:
Post a Reply