Truth Suppression Is Part of “The Delphi Technique”

Truth Suppression Is Part of “The Delphi Technique”

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

July 23rd, 2006, 8:45 am #1

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>About the consensus process!

Someone writes—“There’s a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know including: ‘Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression’ (by D.C. Dave). … Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by many Change Agents who frequent this site!”

So, here is the list:
____________________________

Source: http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp </font>
  • <table width="93%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

    <font class="option" style="font-size: 15pt">
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
    </font></td></tr>
    <tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    <table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
    <font class="option" style="font-size: 10pt">
    by DCDave

    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

    <ol>
  • Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
  • Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you? ” gambit.
  • Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
  • Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
  • Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
  • Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
  • Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
  • Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
  • Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
  • Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
  • Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
  • Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
  • Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
  • Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
  • Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
  • Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
  • Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_______________________

[Emphases added]</font>
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>[/list]
Quote
Like
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

July 23rd, 2006, 9:35 am #2

This thread has been prompted by a fellow soldier “fighting the good fight of faith” who responded to a post (with the above title) as follows:

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>
  • Donnie,

    Yes, we definitely should REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes!


    Thank you for your words of encouragement.

    I applaud you, and certain others wonderful members, who have diligently defended the Lord's Church against those who seek to destroy it on this site.

    Those who have found it not robbery of themselves to dedicate their time and efforts to defend the Lord's Church against the wiles of Satan and his soldiers.

    God bless you for the excellent job that you do on a daily basis.

    Please continue to fight the good fight of faith because you are a most able soldier of God.

    You were absolutely correct when you suggested the following:
    • I wonder if concentrating on an issue [e.g., men lifting up 'holy hands'] among many issues is a good example of the Delphi Technique. The arguments for it, including the highly misunderstood and changed-meaning of "the law of silence" [" that it's OK when the Scripture does NOT say "NOT TO"] are very weak
    You hit the nail right-on-the-head with that statement!

    One of the techniques that Chris and basically all Change agents use is to pick a topic that seems to be a weak issue like "lifting holy hands".

    That tactic is taken right from the "17 techniques of Truth Suppression" (technique # 4) listed below.

    "Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges".

    This technique is used a great deal of the time by the various "Change Agents" and "plants" on this very site!

    Read the list and re-visit various curious postings that are here on this site.

    You will see many of these techniques being employed by these "plants",
    especially Chris and Lance above.

    I just sit back and wonder how anyone can stoop so low as to deal with the Lord's Church in such a disgraceful manner.

    But the Word of God said this would happen. I guess we should not be too surprised.

    There's a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know
    Including:
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression by DCDave

    The list is using "Governments" for an example, but as you have seen demonstrated on this site, these techniques work also with "Churches".

    (Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by the many Change Agents who frequent this site!)

    Truth Suppression is part of the "DELPHI TECHNIQUE".

    Thanks again and God bless!
    [The article by D.C. Dave is placed here]
    <font color=red>Ti:1:10: For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
    Ti:1:11: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
    Ti:1:13: This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
    Ti:1:14: Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
    Ti:1:15: Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
    Ti:1:16: They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
    Ti:2:1: But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
    Ti:2:13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
    Ti:2:14: Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
    Ti:2:15: These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.</font>

    ______________________

    ConcernedMembers Forum—More Churches: Bammel Church of Christ in Houston, TX

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/187120/t ... ston%2C+Tx
</font>
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

August 9th, 2006, 9:01 pm #3

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>About the consensus process!

Someone writes—“There’s a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know including: ‘Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression’ (by D.C. Dave). … Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by many Change Agents who frequent this site!”

So, here is the list:
____________________________

Source: http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp </font>
  • <table width="93%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

    <font class="option" style="font-size: 15pt">
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
    </font></td></tr>
    <tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    <table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
    <font class="option" style="font-size: 10pt">
    by DCDave

    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

    <ol>
  • Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
  • Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you? ” gambit.
  • Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
  • Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
  • Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
  • Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
  • Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
  • Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
  • Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
  • Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
  • Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
  • Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
  • Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
  • Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
  • Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
  • Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
  • Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_______________________

[Emphases added]</font>
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>[/list]
Source: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/the_ ... warren.htm


<font size=5 face=times new roman>
The Delphi Technique and Rick Warren (?)
</font>

<font size=4>Is This happening in your Purpose-Driven Church?</font>

<font size=3 face=times new roman>The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle — the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) — the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc.

In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."</font>


<font size=4>The Delphi Technique. What Is It?</font>

<font size=3 face=times new roman>"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public."

How Delphi Technique leaders — (& Some Church Consultants) are instructed to deal with opposition


Lights, camera, action!
  • architect_selection_concerns — If you can't prove the speaker's points are wrong or invalid, attack him personally. Also, accuse him of doing exactly what you are doing.

    public_input — You've got to confuse the issue, make it hard for the opposing speakers to get their points across. Remember that everyone has their own equally valid opinions and suggestions (that can be disregarded).

    designer_selection_process — Create your own reality. Say what you need to say to achieve your goals, other people can check the validity of your statements later. If no one questions you, you must have been right.

    delphi_technique_bandwagon — Everybody's doing it. It may not be right but everybody's doing it. You should too. Help us achieve a comfortable consensus...

    school_concerns_no_comment — Ignore all questions that make you feel foolish or uncomfortable. Meeting adjourned.
</font>
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

August 22nd, 2006, 6:46 am #4

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>About the consensus process!

Someone writes—“There’s a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know including: ‘Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression’ (by D.C. Dave). … Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by many Change Agents who frequent this site!”

So, here is the list:
____________________________

Source: http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp </font>
  • <table width="93%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

    <font class="option" style="font-size: 15pt">
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
    </font></td></tr>
    <tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    <table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
    <font class="option" style="font-size: 10pt">
    by DCDave

    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

    <ol>
  • Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
  • Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you? ” gambit.
  • Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
  • Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
  • Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
  • Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
  • Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
  • Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
  • Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
  • Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
  • Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
  • Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
  • Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
  • Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
  • Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
  • Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
  • Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_______________________

[Emphases added]</font>
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>[/list]
Source: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/the_ ... warren.htm


<font color =indigo size=3 face=times new roman>The goal of the Delphi technique

The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public. <font color=red>For Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be</font> kept away from knowledgeable people <font color=red> who could lead them away</font> from the Delphier's pre-determined outcome.

One variation of the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.

"Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually, the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table "consensus".
</font>
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 30th, 2006, 10:47 pm #5


Mr. Cruz,
Have you ever seen the movie, "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson? If not, go rent it, and I think you will weep when you see yourself being portrayed. Paranoia is not a trait of a child of God.

He's not worried about the future of His church, why should we be? These crazy theories you put forth are damaging to our cause. They make those of us who oppose the changes going on, seem crazy.

Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 3rd, 2006, 6:07 pm #6

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>About the consensus process!

Someone writes—“There’s a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know including: ‘Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression’ (by D.C. Dave). … Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by many Change Agents who frequent this site!”

So, here is the list:
____________________________

Source: http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp </font>
  • <table width="93%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

    <font class="option" style="font-size: 15pt">
    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
    </font></td></tr>
    <tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    <table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
    <font class="option" style="font-size: 10pt">
    by DCDave

    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

    <ol>
  • Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
  • Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you? ” gambit.
  • Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
  • Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
  • Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
  • Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
  • Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
  • Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
  • Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
  • Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
  • Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
  • Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
  • Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
  • Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
  • Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
  • Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
  • Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_______________________

[Emphases added]</font>
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>[/list]
The following article shines a light on how the Community Church Movement uses various divide and conquer methods in order to manipulate churches. The more we as members of the Church make ourselves (and others) aware of the deceptive tactics that are being uses by the CCM, the less likely it will become that we will be fooled and fall into their deceptive traps.

The post mentions a tool called the "Baseball Diamond".

Is the Church where you attend using this tool?

As members of the Church, we should "open our eyes" so that we will not be led blindly by those who are diligently working behind the scenes to use the Church to achieve their own unGodly objectives.

Lu:6:39: And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?


(The following article was posted on the net by Mainstream Baptist on Wed May 31, 2006, emphasis added)


More disturbing info on Rick Warren et al (5.00 / 2)

I've found an article in Christianity Today that frankly gives even more reason for concern re Warren:

(regarding the model of church setup)

One is the baseball diamond, used to explain the flow of church ministry in a person's life. Vast crowds attend church, but they reach First base, Membership, only by completing Class 101 and signing a covenant of commitment to Christ and the church. Second base is Maturity, reached through another class (201) featuring a covenant of commitment to a daily quiet time, tithing, and a small group. Third base is Ministry, in which members commit to serving actively in the church. They are interviewed and placed in one of dozens of thriving church ministries. Home base is Mission, in which Christians commit to the cause of evangelism. At the center of the diamond is Magnification, which stands for worship. How can one reach maturity before committing to mission or ministry? Chalk it up to the Baptist penchant for alliteration. Purpose-Driven churches make worship the starting point--it's where unchurched people experience the church and decide to commit. It's also the end, since everything centers on glorifying God.

In other words, you can't know what you're buying into without buying in, and even after you've bought in you have no real idea until you're heavily involved just what you're buying into.
This is the EXACT same method Scientology uses to recruit members and pull them into increasing levels of time and money spent (from OT-I to OT-VII levels)--and increasingly coercive practices.

This is also a red flag warning of a potential coercive religious group according to most checklists, including Steve Hassan's BITE Model:


II. Information Control
...
3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
a. Information is not freely accessible
b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what

In fact, a preliminary BITE model analysis shows a lot of disturbing patterns:


I. Behavior Control
1. Regulation of individual's physical reality
a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with
b. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears
c. What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects
d. How much sleep the person is able to have
e. Financial dependence
f. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations


Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals

Need to ask permission for major decisions

Need to report thoughts, feelings and activities to superiors

Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative).

Individualism discouraged; group think prevails

Rigid rules and regulations

Need for obedience and dependency


(Cell groups in general are infamous for behavioural control; the mandatory "covenant" and mandatory "instructional courses", the mandatory (per the "covenant") tithing, and other mandatory things like heavy participation in church affairs would qualify here even if cell churches did not exist at Saddleback.)

II. Information Control
1. Use of deception
a. Deliberately holding back information
b. Distorting information to make it acceptable
c. Outright lying
2. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged
a. Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio
b. Critical information
c. Former members
d. Keep members so busy they don't have time to think
3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
a. Information is not freely accessible
b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what
4. Spying on other members is encouraged
a. Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control
b. Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership
5. Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda
a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc.
b. Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources
6. Unethical use of confession
a. Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries
b. Past "sins" used to manipulate and control; no forgiveness or absolution


(There are reliable reports people have been disfellowshipped from Saddleback for "unrepented sins" and for "not being active enough" (per the LetUsReason article); "The Purpose Driven Life" has an entire media empire; the "covenant" in and of itself can be used as blackmail; people are required to go through mandatory training courses and sign a mandatory "covenant" before becoming members (and thus "going up the pyramid") and most info on what goes on in Saddleback is largely from walkaways. Cell churches in general fall under the "buddy system" and spying on members sections.)

III. Thought Control
1. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"
a. Map = Reality
b. Black and White thinking
c. Good vs. evil
d. Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)


Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.

Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
b. Chanting
c. Meditating
d. Praying
e. Speaking in "tongues"
f. Singing or humming

No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate

No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful


(THIS is why I specifically mention scripture-twisting (both in context--the verses in chapters that have been historically abused--and the actual scripture-twisting done by Warren himself). Scripture-twisting, the use of Bible verses taken out of context, is a very common method of "thought terminating cliche" used in coercive dominionist groups (and by a few other spiritually abusive groups as well). Abuses of Scripture are also very specifically used to stifle any dissent regarding Warren, his doctrine, or his church's policies (this is what the whole "do not gossip" thing is actually about; any criticism of church policies is seen as gossip and even "not submitting to your pastor", and Bible verses are misused to emphasize this). The entire mandatory "covenant" abuses Scripture widely in this regard, taking verses and occasionally just segments of verses out of historical and Biblical context, and is probably the single most common way in which religious abuse is justified in coercive "Bible-based" groups in general.
(Furthermore, as noted by Warren himself, a mandatory course--of which almost no information is available on his website--is required before one can even sign the covenant and join the church. Mainstream Christian groups are considerably more open about their theology, and even some notably abusive dominionist groups are more frank about things.)


IV. Emotional Control

Manipulate and narrow the range of a person's feelings.

Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's.

Excessive use of guilt

a. Identity guilt
1. Who you are (not living up to your potential)
2. Your family
3. Your past
4. Your affiliations
5. Your thoughts, feelings, actions
b. Social guilt
c. Historical guilt
4. Excessive use of fear
a. Fear of thinking independently
b. Fear of the "outside" world
c. Fear of enemies
d. Fear of losing one's "salvation"
e. Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group
f. Fear of disapproval

Extremes of emotional highs and lows.

Ritual and often public confession of "sins".

Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group
b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.
c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group's perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

(As noted, it has been documented that public confession occurs at Warren's services and that "unrepented sin" will cause someone to be disfellowshipped (see (see Christianity Today article); people who leave are decried as "worldly" by Warren (see article in SBC Baptist Press where he literally compares churchmembers refusing to sign mandatory "covenants" as the same as people "walking away from Christ"). Purpose Driven Life seminars tend to emphasize theatrics (and in fact this has been a major source of criticism from some theologians); emotional manipulation is a major purpose of the "Purpose Driven Life" seminars. Groups especially targeted by Warren include persons in recovery from addiction.)

by dogemperor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 09:24:27 PM EST

On church covenants (none / 0)
The practice of members signing church covenants is nearly 400 years old in Baptist churches.
It is not commonly practiced in most churches today, but when it is, it is not commonly a commitment to "mind control." Generally it is simply a symbol of a spiritual commitment.

by Mainstream Baptist on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:43:37 AM EST
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959

Quote
Share