The following dialogue is taken from the so called Rick Ross "Cult Education Forum" (Rick Ross and 'NCCG-Concern' are themselves cultists extraordinaire). Derek resumes a thread which he began when he was originally hostilre to this ministry in order to straighten out the record. The language is secular because of the nature of the group itself in which he is posting. We begin there.

Derek (zealforyahweh) (18 November 2009) - 3 posts combined

I'm the OP (original poster) of this thread and I wanted to clarify a few things. I want to make it clear I'm not a "cult apologist" and while the group definitely has "strange beliefs" when compared to mainstream society, I think its classification as a cult is more a polemical argument from the personal life of NCCG Concern (which I will leave out of this post) and less because it fits any pre-defined criteria. In fact, I believe if we were to place Christianity and Judaism under the same criteria, they would be deemed just as "cultic" as NCCG.

First of all, I have serious doubts that this group can be defined as a cult. This group (from its own site) has materials where it openly ADMITS its "mistakes" (such as its origin in Mormonism to its eventual evolution to "Messianic Evangelicalism" [embracing some of the core tenets of Messianic Judaism and Evangelical Christianity]). While I personally as a Christian do not agree with all of its doctrinal tenets, I cannot qualify them as a cult on the criteria that they will openly admit when they are wrong.

Another reason I cannot consider them a cult: they do not care about building membership numbers. After re-contacting the group after 3 three years of campaigning violently against them, when I finally hit a brick wall myself and apologized to them, they readily forgave me and told me I did not have to re-join. This was a breath of fresh air.

Another observation I made personally from conversations with Christopher Warren is that the group is pushing for a more ecumenical bent (they maintain relationships with Christians of other denominations) without compromising their own theological beliefs. Likewise, since my departure, they are extremely cautious against turning down medical treatment, even once telling me that I should ask my doctor about quitting medical treatment instead of recommending it directly. So this initial criticism I had against them has been addressed.

Finally, the group does not require you be a member of their group to be "saved". They hold to the Protestant belief that salvation is through faith in Christ, coupled with obedience to the teachings of Christ and the Bible.

So that it is clear I'm not "crusading" for them, I do have issues with what I view as their over-reliance on Torah, since they still observe and require the ceremonial laws (kosher, Festivals, Sabbath, tzitzit, etc.), where I personally interpret Colossians 2 as stating that those things are not needful for a Christian. But since that is more of a theological disagreement, I do not wish to enter into it here. Instead, I'm using this one post as a place to publicly retract my criticisms. If the moderators could delete this thread (or even my OP), I would be more than happy, but if not, I would prefer that I'm allowed to post this.

I wanted to add (if I may) that the group does maintain a page of the testimonies of former critics here. Three of my testimonies are likewise on that page.

I think that, like anything, at the end of the day, one must decide for themselves based on the facts. As I said, I'm not a member, but I cannot refer to the group as a cult because to do so would invalidate most of my own and many other belief systems. It is enough for me that they have a view of salvation that is fairly orthodox and are not as "exclusive" as critics such as NCCG Concern portray them to be, despite any mistakes the group has made in the past (which is common to the human condition -- I'm sure at the end of the day, we've made a number of blunders we're all ashamed of).

This is my last post on this topic. :) I wanted to correct it here just in case someone doesn't know how to do it.

Although I also wanted to add one more thing: I've been to the "compound" only one time and for a three month period, not "many times", as Concern suggested.

'NCCG-Concern' (Laura) (22 November 2009)

The original poster in this thread had left the cult's influence for a period of time, as the original post describes. Later, he became involved again after being re-exposed to the cult's internet forum.

Derek (zealforyahweh) (22 November 2009)

I know I said I wasn't going to post here again, but I received an update to this via email. So here goes . . .

Not true, NCCG Concern, if by "involved" you mean I'm a "member" or a "fringe member". I'm on friendly terms with the group, but, as stated, believe differently than them in vital areas of doctrine and practice.

I *did*, however, write some materials for this group recanting my original position, which they posted to their page. Since then, though, I have written a number of posts, some of which I have posted directly to their Ning group, on my blog there. Interestingly enough, the group does allow people to post beliefs separate from their own on their private blogs. This post where I entirely recant belief in ceremonial law here is entirely against the position of the MLT ministry, who believe Christians should observe such things such as kosher, Sabbath, etc. I, obviously, do not.

Its incidents like these that can quickly slide into libel and something I'm trying to repair through posts such as this. I'm not sure if Concern means well in this regard, but Concern is clearly mistaken on this and a number of other vital key facts. I had desired to have this thread deleted entirely, as I'm trying to move on in life and get my life back together, but since I was told in private email that was not allowed by Rick Ross himself, I was granted permission to post a retraction as long as it doesn't go against the rules. I'm doing this to try to restore the reputations and names of many innocent people (some who I can't name here for obvious reasons).

'NCCG-Concern' (22 November 2009)

Quote: zealforyahweh if by "involved" you mean I'm a "member" or a "fringe member". I'm on friendly terms with the group .... Since then, though, I have written a number of posts, some of which I have posted directly to their Ning group, on my blog there.

The pattern of a friendly, internet-based relationship with the cult's leadership, plus participation in the cult's messageboards (the current one being hosted on the "Ning" service as described above), is typically present when someone is in a controlled relationship with NCCG ( [www.nccg.info] ). This has been the case since 2002 or 2003 through today (2009) ( timeline: [www.nccg.info] ).

The concept of "member" vs "non-member" of NCCG is not meaningful. This goes back to around 2006, from when NCCG leader Christoper Warren re-defined the word "member" based upon what apparently suited the cult's needs at the time*. In an internet-published statement made primarily for the benefit of cult-involved people, excessive, lengthy focus was put upon the concept of "member" vs "non-member". Warren had written this in response to concerns about the cult from outsiders. The result was that the cult-involved people focused upon Warren's word re-definition instead of the concerns.

Quote: zealforyahweh but, as stated, believe differently than them in vital areas of doctrine and practice.

The specifics of NCCG's beliefs do not affect the cult's ability to initiate and maintain controlling relationships, or, to damage someone's mental health. Someone presenting themselves as having a more variable set of beliefs has never affected this.

NCCG's specific beliefs change over time, with the biggest shifts historically happening in response to internal problems ( major examples documented within [www.nccg.info] ). What has remained constant is the undue influence, not the beliefs.

To be safe from being recruited (or re-recruited), it is necessary to do more than feel that your beliefs are different. There should be no internet contact possible between the cult and the individual ( [www.nccg.info] ). This would be achieved by the person being unknown to them, or the person positively not allowing that contact, or, the cult not having good contact information for the person. In my experience, there's no fine line of safe, internet-based friendliness with NCCG vs. unsafe. It is all potentially unsafe.

[*NCCG Note: This is a typical example of 'Mister Concern's distortion methods where she deliberately tries to make it look at though our making a clear distinction between baptised church members and members of online discussion groups is somehow a "redefinition" of membership to absolve ourselves of responsibility. There is obviously a difference between someone who is a member of a congregation through commitment and baptism and a member of a public discussion group, a few of whom are interested investigators of the church with the vast majority being people simply curious to know something about the church. This is a perfect illustration of 'NCCG-Concern' trying to demonise the normal]

Derek (zealforyahweh) (26 November 2009)

Quote: NCCG Concern The pattern of a friendly, internet-based relationship with the cult's leadership, plus participation in the cult's messageboards (the current one being hosted on the "Ning" service as described above), is typically present when someone is in a controlled relationship with NCCG ( [www.nccg.info] ). This has been the case since 2002 or 2003 through today (2009) ( timeline: [www.nccg.info] ).

I don't think I have to state how absurd NCCG Concern's definition of a "controlled" relationship is -- essentially, one only need to be participating on their message board and somehow, through some mystic mojo that Christopher Warren is believed to possess, people essentially become "brainwashed".

I'm not going to state that some people aren't easily influenced (they are), but in this sense, I think some of what NCCG teaches is hard to swallow for the average "joe" (NCCG members/investigators tend to be highly intelligent and/or idealistic -- in fact, I think it can be demonstrated through the individuals of the group alone that while many participate on their boards, the vast majority do not join and yet still remain on friendly terms with them -- after all, the group teaches salvation is only through Christ, not the group). Likewise, on pages such as Fast Facts, NCCG Concern states carte blanche that Christopher Warren uses some sort of "hypnotic writing". Where? Can it be demonstrably proven? Can it be falsified? Or should we take NCCG Concern's word for it when she states that its "just so"?

Before NCCG Concern can state this, she has to present an example of hypnotic versus non-hypnotic writing. Obviously, I would prefer an expert on this sort of thing and not just her or someone with an agenda -- an unassociated individual who has training in this would be ideal.

Finally, she has to demonstrate an example of this hypnotic writing in effect: a case study, in particular, as it relates to Christopher Warren, AFTER it happens and using primary documentation.

As for myself, personally, the crux of her argument seems to imply I'm in a "controlling relationship" because I participate on their boards. I also occasionally post to and belong to a Seventh Day Adventist social network on Ning -- does that mean they, too, are controlling me or that I'm now a Seventh Day Adventist? Do I magically, through osmosis, enter controlling relationships with each individual I talk to and take on their beliefs since I've now "lost" control? This idea of "control via osmosis" is pure rubbish unless, I believe, Concern meets the criteria I have mentioned above. Her policy of "assert first, ask questions later" needs to end. And while I'll admit that, at times, it seems to me this group does the same ("assert first, ask questions later"), I believe objectivity is only possible when people drop all preconceived notions of the other. In short, Concern has to be able to present a scientifically testable theory of many of the things she asserts (hypnotic writing, Warren's so-called "psychopathy", etc.).

As for her historic time line in her second link in her recent post on this thread, I have never questioned whether or not its true or false, but given her source sample, I believe it is possibly more false than true. A total of 34 different times, Concern cites an unnamed but highly involved individual as a "primary source". This source is highly antagonistic (which obviously colors all objectivity) and while they may or may not be speaking the truth, it is hard to tell unless we can see either primary documentation which backs their claims or more people come out and verify these facts. I do believe this source skirts dangerously close to libel, a sin I once committed, no matter how "well-intentioned" -- courts generally do not smile favorably on this sort of thing and Concern may see her self in more legal water than she can chew if the group decides to prosecute.

In other words, until she can say, "All the things that source 22 says is true and we know this because of source 23, 24, 25, etc. and this information has been cross-examined and backed by trained professionals", she skirts awfully close to libel. And while I wouldn't necessarily disregard source 22's testimony as a scholar, neither would I interpret the data on source 22's testimony alone, but would seek a plurality of witnesses and primary documentation. Regardless of how you feel about a group, you want your data to correspond with reality in order to be objective.

In this, though, I am not stating one needs to be dispassionate as a result of the data. I do think, though, one needs to be clear about what they are evangelizing for (and whether or not Concern acknowledges it, she is evangelizing for an ideology -- in this case, one that disagrees with NCCG/MLT). I am a Christian and I have sought to be as clear as possible about what it is I evangelize for: I'm going back to college to study Classical Languages (Greek and Latin) and Philosophy so that I may eventually pursue a Master's and Doctor's in Theology. I personally believe one should be as knowledgeable as possible about the things they believe (even if its atheistic nihilism) if they are going to evangelize for it. And believe it or not, I decided to pursue this route because of doctrinal disagreements I've had in the past with this group and also the Mormons, Messianic Jews, etc.

It should be noted that not once in this post am I either affirming or denying NCCG/MLT may or may not be a cult. I, personally, do not see it. I have stated my reasons why I do not see it. I also think that some of Concern's conclusions, taken to their logical conclusion, are just as downright absurd. The truth is, based on this post and others, she seems to believe that people have the ability to take your rights through some form of psychological "dark magick" (i.e. hypnotic writing) that she has not demonstrated yet (I think she told me in a phone conversation she heard this was possible from a cult deprogrammer -- I do not know if its true or not, I am just saying nothing more than it needs to be demonstrated). She likewise seems to think that just because they possess this ability, all are "influenced" in the same degree. I can state categorically that I am not in any way, shape or form controlled by this group -- these are my thoughts and they're not being fact-checked by Chris Warren. If he were to tell me I needed to present my own thoughts in any other way than that which my conscience and the Bible allows me, I would tell him I'm a slave only to my God and my own conscience.

Neither am I denying dangerous religious groups or ideologies may or may not exist. As a Christian, I would be absurd to make that judgment, since I believe anything in opposition to the gospel is potentially dangerous. People are free in this world to agree or disagree with my assessment. But, irony of all ironies, since I myself am highly logical, I demand proof of Concern's assertions before I swallow it. I have outlined areas where I think proof is lacking.

If these things can be factually proven, it is then I am more likely to make a judgment about whether or not NCCG is a cult. As far as I'm concerned, based on my current assessment, it is a group with a history of mistakes of which they have readily admitted and repented for (whereas I think a "cult" would want to gloss over those aspects). Everything that pertains to me has been resolved, to my satisfaction, privately through conversations with this group. And while I still have questions, neither will I hate ANYONE with whom I happen to disagree with, regardless of the harm they may have caused me. Nor do I hate Concern.

But I do take issue with her "belief", colored by her worldview, I believe, that I'm some incompetent "mind controlled" victim under undue influence. I believe I have already demonstrated that I have my own agenda and that is repairing reputations that I, through libel, have destroyed. This is my Christian duty to any group I disagree with, whether they are Christians or whether they offer virgins on the altar to Satan. A Christian is supposed to be honest, regardless. Neither do I have any obligations to Christopher Warren -- I think my stated disagreements here are evidence of that.

And its because of this assertion that I'm "involved" because of, in her words, a "pattern of a friendly, internet-based relationship with the cult's leadership, plus participation in the cult's messageboards [sic] . . . [which] is typically present when someone is in a controlled relationship with NCCG", that I have written this post. I think its absurd in the umpteenth degree to suggest that because I may or may not have been influenced in the past means I am or am not influenced now (and it likewise ignores a number of psychological factors I underwent at the time and whether or not the group truly "exploited" those or if it was my own fault for viewing Warren the same way Mormons view their own prophet -- a belief system I came out of shortly before involving myself with NCCG back in 2004). I take issue with this because if her beliefs regarding this are taken to their logical conclusions, one would be unable to form relationships of any sort with anyone out of fear of undue influence.

This has been a bit long, but I do believe Concern has to satisfy the above criteria before I take her seriously as an investigator. I believe any scientific, rational-minded person (Christian, atheist, Buddhist, etc.) would argue that the things I suggest above are not only logically sound, but imperative if she wishes to make the assertions that she does make.

Rick Ross (rrmoderator) (23 November 2009)

The research material is publicly available through the archives within this Web site.

See [www.rickross.com]

This research outlines the basics of social influence.

See [www.rickross.com]

Emotional Manipulation

According to Cialdini, the majority of the thousands of different tactics that compliance professionals use fall into six categories, and each category is based on a psychological principle that directs human behavior. These six principles are:

1. Consistency. We try to justify our earlier behavior.
2. Reciprocity. If somebody gives us something, we try to repay in kind.
3. Social Proof. We try to find out what other people think is correct.
4. Authority. We have a deep-seated sense of duty to authority figures.
5. Liking. We obey people we like.
6. Scarcity. If we come to want something, we can be made to fear that if we wait it will be gone. The opportunity to get it may pass. We want to take it now - whatever is being offered, from an object to cosmic consciousness.

We can see how transformations occur when the six principles are skillfully put into play by cult leaders and cultic groups. For example:

1. Consistency. If you have made a commitment to the group and then break it, you can be made to feel guilty.
2. Reciprocity. If you accept the group's food and attention, you feel you should repay them.
3. Social proof. If you look around in the group, you will see people behaving in particular ways. You imitate what you see and assume that such behavior is proper, good, and expected.
4. Authority. If you tend to respect authority, and your cult leader claims superior knowledge, power, and special missions in life, you accept him as an authority.
5. Liking. If you are the object of love bombing and other tactics that surround you, make you feel wanted and loved, and make you like the people in the group, you feel you ought to obey these people.
6. Scarcity. If you are told that without the group you will miss out on living a life without stress; miss out on attaining cosmic awareness and bliss; miss out on changing the world instantly or gaining the ability to travel back in time; or miss out on whatever the group offers that is tailored to seem essential to you, you will feel you must buy in now.

Coercive persuasion is described in research within the following paper.

[www.rickross.com]

The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

See [www.rickross.com]

Note the distinctions between education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform, often called "brainwashing" or coercive persuasion.

Torture in not necessary in brainwashing.

Derek (zealforyahweh) (26 November 2009)

Thanks Mr. Ross for your response. However, while I do have some questions about what you have stated, I'll forgo those until I have read more about it (I intend on getting or borrowing the book the material is referenced in). However, I do not think we're speaking of the same thing.

On the NCCG.INFO website, Concern says the following:

Quote: NCCG Concern
READING MATERIAL WITH HYPNOTIC EFFECTS "Christopher C. Warren has written a large amount of material related to his cult since its inception, and continues to do so. A portion of these writings was reviewed by a cult expert who advised me that that it is capable of inducing a hypnotic, suggestible state in the reader. The cult expert explained that it's not uncommon for cult leaders to write material that affects people this way.

"In past years, this writing used to be self-published in pamphlet form, but today it is generally put on the internet, mostly on the cult's main web site (www.nccg.org)" (Source: [nccg.info]).

And:

Quote: NCCG Concern "1) HYPNOTIC WRITING: The writing by Christopher C. Warren on the NCCG website and in pamphlets is 'hypnotic writing,' according to Mary Alice Crapo, a professional exit counselor with 20+ years experience in cult exit counseling. She indicated that if someone persists in reading it, they will eventually feel inclined to believe the material, even if they did not decide to believe it based upon its merits" (Source: [nccg.info]).

A large part of this is the "mystic mumbo jumbo" I was referring to in my post above and the thing I want proven. Is there documented evidence that reading certain materials could cause one to "feel inclined to believe the material, even if they did not decide to believe it based upon its merits"? Or could it simply be that people are persuaded to believe similarly? Would reading religious materials and believing them be considered undue influence? And in what manner did Crapo come to that conclusion: has she (or preferably, a scientist) tested it in a controlled setting and can it be repeated or falsified?

I did want to fix two factual errors, but I wrote them because I was angry and wasn't thinking clearly. While it is true that Bud Rice did enter "my" house without "my" permission, this is because he was my landlord and Christopher Warren asked him to recover pamphlets that belonged to the group (not me) because I was incapacitated and in the hospital. I said he "robbed the place" simply because I was peeved he went in without asking me. He did take some knives, but he did so because he had loaned them to me and my stuff simply got mixed in with his own. So in this way, I do not blame him, even if I was upset at the time.

On another note, neither did Christopher Warren and his family rob the home. Gunnar Mjølsvik had apparently left some of his property with the cooperative and there were many things the group did leave behind for his own family (such as keepsakes, etc.). I imagine that the reason post cards and things of that nature were ripped up because they contained sensitive, private information that was no one's business aside from those involved. Now that I'm no longer angry with the group and can think with a clearer head, it doesn't bother me as much and I can see people's intentions much better (it is easy to judge people when your views are colored by emotions).

I hope this clears up a few things and I hope to get more answers to my question. :)