In Reply to: Re: From the inside posted by J.L. on November 23, 2009 at 16:18:03:
A parable: Shoppers were tired of using brand X because of the high price, low quality and poor service. So when new-improved and cheaper brand Y finally came along, they decided that they would switch over and boycott brand X. Little did they know, brand X and Y are owned by the same global group. Brand Y had been planned years before but only released into the market when consumer polls showed extreme dissatisfaction--thresholds of tolerance were much lower and the product was perceived as outdated. Consumers went happily on with their shopping, believing they had a choice of brands, and some measure of voting power with their wallet.
Well it's not really a parable, because this actually happens in life all the time.
I think the "changes" in the TFI are very superficial at best, and do not constitute real change. For someone on the inside, you may not see it. You believe you're moving from brand X to brand Y. Because of the life you lead, because your whole world is the cult, you may think these "changes" are a really big deal, really liberating. The perspective from out here? It looks pretty shallow and more of the same. Hardly liberating at all.
As of today, TFI is still very much a con-job organization that is not upfront about its true beliefs, its finances, and its agenda. There is still a whole lot of secrecy, layers of inner and outer cores, and the usual trickery involved in proselytization efforts. This is another version of invade the churches, or RNR, or "infiltrate the system." This is an extension of the deceptive practices to appear "good" and be accepted when you embarked on your charity-front phase.
You wrote: "Past happenings and history aside, what do you think of it now?"
If TFI is to be taken seriously at all and respected as a "good" mainstream organization and not a cult, they shouldn't keep playing magic slate. That escapism only reflects their immaturity as a movement. The bad things they have propagated and done don't magically disappear just because they sweep it all under the rug and rewrite history. Any organization which does not take full responsibility for the bad things they have done in the past cannot shed their luggage and move on. And full responsibility is defined by law, not just "detractors." On the more benevolent end it means among other things dialogue, listening to what the people they have hurt want, admission of guilt, reparations. On the other end it means surrendering the whereabouts of those wanted on criminal charges to the law.