In Reply to: Re: communications & James Seemore posted by James Seemore on November 03, 2005 at 17:09:12:
james, it is clear to see that you are pretty ticked. whether in or out , it is pretty typical that we are often judged in action and motive by folks who will apply their knowledge of a generality to our particularity, which may differ in many ways from the picture they have. i do not know where you are, what you do, or the miriad of motives that usually go into why we as humans do what what we do. (this last one is often difficult for us to understand about ourselves, as both the bible and psychology attest.) but, as you are a sg of an age to have your own kids, there are some things that can be safely assumed , but certainly not all. heck, my own kids, some very close in age, each had varied experiences, as well as feelings about those experiences.
i think it is risky to assume too much about each others particulars. but i'm guessing that it can't be too hard for you to understand why many exmems are extremely upset over the havoc wrought in their lives, and the lives of their kids by fam teachings and practices. it seems that sg's still in the fam process their experiences in the era of the most rampant abuse very differently than those who are no longer in, and no longer veiwing those experiences thru that lens. if you have never been out of that environment, it may be difficult, but having been both in and out, believe me, the point of veiw is dramatically different.
i do believe that homes vary dramatically in their s.o.p... from ministry to fundraising, sharing, ljr, chatting w/ the dead, etc. it may be unfair to judge you by someone else's last home. but it does seem to me fairly obvious that no one is completly upfront w/ their beliefs in their approach to donations, provisioning, etc. if fcf, or activated etc were to publish "my little fish" or "god's whores" or the ljr for their donors, what do you think the reaction would be? i guess if you accept abrahim as an authority on par w/ jesus, paul, etc., than a "si, si, oui, oui, ya, ya" is a way of somehow massaging the reality to make it feel ok. but eventually most of us realized this just felt, and was, wrong. what do you think?
you strike me as the kind of person who doesn't want to accept things at face value. your willingness to critique family pubs, etc is a lot more freethinking than i achieved for most of my time in... even when in fairly independent situations. i really hope you can avoid simply a reactionary response to things people say, and try to weigh it out... why people feel the way they do, the cause of the anger, frustration and pain. i recall some qt about trying to walk a mile in the otheer guys shoes. if you try, it might be quite enlightening.
good luck, james.
ps... funny, but when searching for a title for david berg when trying to be value neutral (ie... when discussing w/ current fammems etc) i often use "mo". i can no longer refer to him as "dad" and i detect a stong negative when i refer to him to fammems by his legal name. mo seems to let folks know who i mean w/o shutting down communication. so for what it is worth, you souynd pretty much like a family member to me! that will be either a compliment or an insult depending on the reader i guess. i only mean it to say your posts strike me as genuine.