In Reply to: Defining "Heresy" is religious posted by Jo on August 27, 2003 at 13:44:22:
Good point, Jo, that defining "heresy" takes something out of the legal context and into the religious. I guess my point in referring to their teachings as "heresy" was to show that because we are living in a free society where freedom is speech is guaranteed, it can hardly be labeled "religious persecution" to disagree with and argue against their offbeat religious views. Especially since as you pointed out, they try to worm their way into Christian organizations, TV stations, churches, etc. for support, PR and sometimes disciples---whereas if those organizations knew what the Family REALLY believed, they'd never have a thing to do with them.
The Family believes many things which the majority of Christians would find abhorrent (including the LJR masturbation to Jesus) but part of the cult's modus operandi is to deliberately conceal and cover up these things that would cause Christians to reject them, so that they can "use the system." And the funny thing is that they will be so sweet to people while getting stuff out of them, money, PR, disciples, but behind their backs will despise them as half-hearted compromising systemites.
I like how you summed it up: "If their job was to promote videos to Christian TV stations, knowing their policies and who those videos would target, and who they would support, I would have no problem writing to the station to express my concerns. While the videos may be harmless in and of themselves, the children that watch them may eventually grow up with a fondness for the candy coating that will hook them into the poisonous pill (control, abuse within the Family) in the long run. And those same videos give the Family an innocuous appearance. Not to mention that they give the family a stamp of approval of sorts in the Christian community at large. I think most here are in agreement that the Family is anything but innocuous."
Also, I love this statement: "If the family got rid of all their sex doctrines but still had the "mama" syndrome of dependence on the leader for what to believe, think, how to act, be, etc, it would still be extremely destructive and emotionally and spiritually abusive."
for those who are dealing with that."
The abuse goes deeper than the sexual abuse. The issue is one of control, and once they have people by the balls, so to speak, they can basically get them to beleive anything they want, whether it's that Heaven is in the moon, you should masturbate to Jesus, or that child-adult sex it pure in God's eyes. Control is the issue.