My comment |
Corresponding
statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis
added) |
Here
is what Chris has said about the Olive Branch in a document structured as
a Question/Answer reference (Source: "25. State of the Church Report,
January 2004" by Christopher C. Warren):
Q.
What
is the role of the Olive Branch? A. It is a supplement for the
priesthood - the leaders of both the local congregation and the general
church. It contains instructions, amongst other things, on church
government not found in the Bible. Pastors, Elders and Deacons are bound
by it when they enter NCCG.
First
point:
In the passage shown to the right, Chris
Warren writes that I indicated that the Olive Branch is "NCCG's Bible". In reality, I never stated this. What I
did state, however, was "Christopher Warren wrote his own Bible", and
""The Olive Branch" is a Bible knock-off, for lack of a better term, that
was written primarily by Warren". [No,
he didn’t write that this author indicated that the Olive Branch is NCCG’s “Bible”. He only wrote that it is not NCCG’s Bible.]
I
base this upon my observations made about the Olive Branch as they compare
to the Bible, which are as follows:
- Grammar.
(1) The Olive Branch uses the
same antiquated version of the English language that is visible in the
most widely-distributed version of the Bible, the King James version. This version of English was in use between
1450 and 1650AD. (see link). [Go to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
-- you will find many modern translations of ancient Christian documents
were written in the same antiquated language. Many people do associate
the "holy" with Elizabethean English, for good or for ill. Personally, I
do not think it matters if it was written in Elizabethean English or if
it was written in New International Version English. The issue is
whether or not the teachings in it hold up to the Bible.]
- Cover
design.
It is a very dark blue cover, almost black, with a texture that looks
like a hardcover Bible (2).
It has gold inlaid print on the front that says "The Olive Branch" where
"The Bible" would have been (3). Click here to view a close-up
screenshot. click this link and Click
here
to view a close-up picture demonstrating this. [According
to this author, obviously, the cover of the book indicates what’s in it?
So every hard-covered book with gold inlaid print is more or less a
Bible “knock-off” to him?]
[Again, this point is invalid. It doesn't
disprove the points of said book. (From hereon out, I will refer to the
"Olive Branch" as "OB").]
- Physical
dimensions
as designed with the publisher (4). It's actually a bit bulkier
than a typical Bible, but the proportional dimensions remain very
similar. The only skipped physical characteristics I can think of which
would have completed the whole hardcover "Bible" picture would have been
"thin paper", gold-gilded pages.
[… so there’s no similarity there.]
[As a collector of Bibles, I have quite a
few which do not meet the OBs proportions. Is there some sort of
universal Bible proportional rule I'm missing out on here? Likewise, it
does not disprove the cliams of the OB.]
- Page
layout.
[While it is true that the page layout of the Olive
Branch is laid-out like many Bible translations, it is also true that
scientific magazines, encylcopedias, and dictionaries have a similar
layout. The OB lay-out, as one will see when they observe other portions
of Concern's page, has columns, footnotes and section headings.
Thus, anything with these, according to Concern's logic, is a "Bible
knock-off". Well, maybe the Bible is a dictionary
knock-off?]
- Columns
just like the Bible (5),
[And
just like the Hello magazine.]
- Each
and every sentence numbered
as it occurs (6) [I have seen paragraphs numbered in non-biblical books. In
fact, many college textbooks also use this style for easy
reference.]
- All
text fits into a system of "PWNC" and
"Section".
The Bible, being arranged similarly by the "Book" and "Chapter" (7). [It
is obvious that the Olive Branch is meant to be quoted. These systems
are needed for that purpose.]
[The system works. Originally, though,
the Bible didn't have this system (and doesn't in its earliest
autographs). Where did it come from?]
- Page
numbers are never referenced
when
talking about the Olive Branch, just PWNC and
SECTION (8). Very few books I
am aware of are referenced like this, the Bible being one of
them.
[That’s easy to understand. The Olive Branch is not available only to
those who have bought the book, but parts of it also are published
online. What use would it be to quote it by page number?]
- Content.
It contains prophecies, revelations, historical
accounts from NCCG's history,
statements that supposedly came from God, rules about
NCCG, and I think I saw some Psalms as
well.
[And isn’t that its purpose as C.C. Warren stated before? The Olive
Branch isn’t trying to hide the fact that it is “inspired from God”,
quite on the contrary, it makes a big point of it.] ["And I think some Psalms"? It sounds like Mr. Concern
hasn't seriously read its contents. But this is no big deal to me. While
I've learned much from the OB, it is secondary. In my ministry, I do not
even stress it. If the OB were to be uncanonized tomorrow, I wouldn't
sweat it. Its a spiritual help, much like pastors, teachers, spiritual
books, etc., but its not as good as the Bible itself. But just because
it isn't as good as the Bible doesn't mean I need to get rid of it, just
like I don't need to get rid of pastors, teachers, spiritual books,
etc.]
In
my observation, the Olive Branch very much resembles a Bible look-alike,
and it is important to keep in mind that all of these similarities between
the print version of the Olive Branch and the Bible were discretionary.
Bible below
Olive
Branch below
Bible
below.
I
believe it is extremely likely that Chris Warren had the Olive Branch
published in a way that physically resembles a Bible in order to help
create the impression among NCCG members that he
receives genuine visions and revelations directly from God. This belief
can then be extended to support other beliefs about NCCG members themselves also receiving such visions
and revelations. [So
he actually wrote this huge book (1160 pages) to prove to the NCCG members that he is a real prophet? And then to
manipulate them into believing they can do it as well? That’s “EXTREMELY
LIKELY”?? Honestly, does the author have any idea how a person becomes an
NCCG member? Well, it definitely doesn’t happen
in a day. For most people, it doesn’t happen in a year. I think the people
who have chosen to become NCCG members know C.C.
Warren well enough to tell whether he receives genuine visions or not, and
they most probably don’t need a bulky Olive Branch – Bible “Knock-off” –
to be convinced.] [So Warren sold his house to "prove"
to a fledgling membership that he receives "genuine visions and
revelations directly from God"? This hypotehsis certainly requires a lot
of faith.]
NCCG currently utilizes a core set of beliefs that
requires deeply-involved members to believe
that Chris Warren, as well as other members within NCCG, receive visions and revelations directly from
God. This is a critical belief for NCCG and if
it were to fail, NCCG could not continue in
it's present form. [Nearly
all Pentecostals base their belief system in divine revelation, and
Pentecostals aren’t some weird underground cult. Mormons do that as well,
and the Seventh Day Adventists also, claiming the “divine inspiration” in
Ellen White’s writings.]
[I agree with this. If our prophecies were false, NCCG
would not be the same. But at the same time, this doesn't invalidate
prophecy altogether. It seems Concern has an agenda against modern-day
prophets, as evidenced on his prophecy page.] The contents of the
Olive Branch appear to not be as important to NCCG as the reinforcement the Olive Branch offers
members regarding this precept. [So
it’s just the impression it gives, not its contents? Is the author serious
here? Just because the ONLY judgement he has to offer about the Olive
Branch is about how it LOOKS, does he think that the members and
investigators judge by the same childish measure?] [We could "push" the precept of prophecy so
many ways -- why would Warren sell his home just to prove to his
membership that he receives revelations from God? There are cheaper ways
to do that.]
Many
NCCG members (both fringe and core members) are
recruited from a Christian or Mormon environment. [Half-true. While I'm an ex-Mormon and believe many former
Mormons are drawn to NCCG because of its belief in modern-day
prophecy, there is no active campaign I know of to recruit Mormons, aside
from the LDS section on the old NCCG website (this is how I became a
member). However, it should be noted that we don't target exclusively
Mormons.] The Olive Branch's close resemblance to the Bible
creates both a visual and literary draw for these people, appealing to
members and recruits on both conscious and subconscious levels.
[If
the author was better informed he would know that the Olive Branch is VERY
secondary when it comes to new people coming to NCCG, in terms of being used or quoted.] [Well, it really doesn't matter how the OB is
published. I have in my library several old publications of revelations
NCCG has done in the past under its various names. I requested these for
historic interest and wanted to understand the prophetic process better
and my request was granted. It should be noted that previous publications
did not always retain this appearance. In fact, they were originally very
cheaply bound. However, this did not change whether or not the content in
them was true.]
Undue
influence (such as NCCG demonstrates with it's Olive Branch/Bible similarities) interferes with
the ability of people to choose what they want to believe. It is like
being tricked, only the trick goes on for as long as the members continue
to buy into it. [NCCG members don’t choose want they want to believe
then? Because a book is similar to the Bible, everyone is automatically
brainwashed? That’s kind of tragic. I mean, the author here totally
discards the existence of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), but he’s willing to
believe that a person who seems to have devoted everything he owns for his
religion is at the same time a wicked manipulator? But Satanists are
ok?].
[This is how people view sacred books. I could say its
"undue influence"because the cheap dollar dictionary at Wal-Mart looks
like an authentic Merriam-Webster's. There are several other factors to
consider other than what a book looks like. Most people at least have that
much common sense.] This is only one example of undue influence
within NCCG, some more are listed below:
- Fantasies
about attacks against NCCG members by "satanists" and other conspiracies revolving around
satanists being represented as
true; [Ironically, I
have IM conversations from at least one of these so-called "Satanists"
that confirm that Warren's prophecies were accurate. But I am choosing
to withhold names.]
- Making
prophecies which attempt to predict events in the near future, some of
which completely fail and some of which prove accurate. The ones which
fail are excused for various reasons, leaving the ones that succeed and
the open-ended ones as the only prophecies that are seriously considered
by NCCG members. [I debunk Concern's criterion for determing
"true" and "false" prophecies on the "Bible Study" section of this
site.]
- Some
prophecies which completely failed:
- Norway
did not financially collapse in November, 1998. [Debunked.]
- Czechoslovakia split up [Debunked. Although I'm sure Concern will make it into
a peeing contest to prove I did not debunk him -- I'm really
not interested.]
- A
prophecy which did not fail:
- East
and West
Germany reunited. This prophecy has
a recorded date of March, 1989, a time when the political
wheels for this change were already turning. The Berlin Wall "fell" 8 months later, that November.
- Some
prophecies that are open-ended and can therefore never "fail":
- The
USA and
Canada will "eventually"
unite
- Hungary will "eventually"
prosper
- Poland
will "eventually" buy back areas of European land it lost in prior
wars. [These prophecies CAN fail, though. All
the Messiah has to do is return tomorrow to invalidate them (unless
He is the one "uniting" and "prospering" these
nations.]
- Use
of Satanic Ritual Abuse related "recovered memories", primarily with
women, to aid in developing a controlling, guru-like relationship. This
is a known practice among some other destructive cults as well. The
"Widespread SRA conspiracy" as NCCG and some
other destructive cults profess it to exist has been succesfully shown to be a fantasy. Some included
links on this topic can be read here (SRA)
and here (SRA)
and here
(SRA)
and here
(SRA).
[There
is no proof that SRA does NOT exist. Other than that, if it’s too
gruesome for the author to admit its existence then he may believe what
he wants to believe, which apparently is his religion also: Let’s
believe whatever makes us more comfortable. The reason I believe that
SRA obviously exists is because just about every SRA “ritual” is
practiced by other groups of people whose existence is acknowledged. I
don’t think it’s all that far-fetched that people would carry out such
practices for the sake of worshipping Satan. Now if it sounds so very
horrible to nccg_concern or members of the
public that they’d rather it didn’t exist, they can choose to believe
that, but they can’t push their opinion down people’s throats.] [All I have are the claims of those who say it
exist, who are victims and who are often members of the same coven and
know things about other people without knowing I know the other
people. I've met these people in various circumstances, including
Internet chatrooms, to avoid this being "planned" -- I think for all
intents and purposes, it couldn't be a coincedence.]
- Use
of inducement of Multiple Personality Disorder, primarily with women, to
aid in developing a controlling, guru-like relationship. This is a known
practice among some other destructive cults as well, and is known among
mental health professionals to be potentially dangerous to the lifetime
mental health of the victims. An included link on this topic can be
read here.
[OK,
I don’t disagree with this being a dangerous practice, but there are so
few people in NCCG who are or considered to be
MPD’s that it would be a lie to say that NCCG “induces” MPD. Consider that none of the “core
members” is an MPD and no more than 3 people in the groups (who are not
members, incidentally) are diagnosed as such.]
[Again, Mr. Concern should think of the
people we insist aren't MPD even though they THINK they
are.]
My
full, original text regarding the Olive Branch is shown below:
"The
Olive Branch" is a Bible knock-off [as is the
dictionary . . .], for lack of a better term, that was written
primarily by Warren. When writing or talking about
"The Olive Branch" to people who have not reached a sufficient level
within the group, Warren attempts to minimize the significance of "The
Olive Branch" as compared with the Bible, but the core members' day to day
practices do not reflect this perspective. [As a
"core" member, I have to disagree with this allegation. One person at "The
Compound" (as Mr. Concern so fondly refers to it) was even counselled not
to worry about its contents when he was questioning it, but was counselled
to read the Bible.] The book is a source of extra rules and
guidelines for the group. Many of the extra assertions do not appear to
this author to have a factually identifiable biblical basis. [Neither do many of the allegations of Mr. Concern appear to
this person writing in red (Derek Rumpler) to have a factually
identifiable biblical basis.] It has been printed in a way
that physically resembles the Bible, its material is organized and
categorized in a way that is similar to the Bible, and it has language and
declarations that mimic the Bible in form and style." [You
will find comments on this in the Belief and the Overview
sections]
|
Here
are a couple of very serious allegations that need clearing up at
once:
1.
The Olive Branch is not NCCG's "Bible" -
that is a blatant lie. The Olive Branch is just a collection of
revelations and is very secondary to the Bible. Indeed it isn't
even primary canon. We have often stated that we do not need it for our
mission and that the Bible is sufficient in all matters of doctrine and
faith, and is so treated.
|
My Comment |
Corresponding
statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis
added) |
Disclaimer:
This section of comments have been written using a writing style inspired
by that of Community Moderator, for an intended affect of emphasis.
[…
and ranting. So it’s on purpose? The “psychoanalyst/cult expert/serious
investigator” turns into an angry teenager for the sake of emphasis? Wow,
that’s kind of original. By the way, has C.C. Warren (Community Moderator)
ever said the following phrase?]
Chris
Warren's comments to the right are ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!! [LOL, well thanks a lot, that’s so objective.]]
First
point: Privacy issues have, for some time, prevented me from
discussing the details on this one. [Just as they've
prevented us from discussing and "proving" Satanic Ritual Abuse.]
Any actual Christians [Note how Mr. Concern
defines the word "actual" for you -- he has done the thinking for you in a
style that is "hypnotic and suggestive"] would feel inclined to
run right out the door (like I
have) [Thus, making Concern an "actual Christian"
according to his criteria] if these details were prominently
displayed on the www.nccg.org web site. And no, I don't just mean the
Polygamy beliefs. It's worse than that. ["Ruh roh,
Shaggy!"]
One thing which should be mentioned about the
internet is that you cannot assume that the person you are chatting with
actually likes you or is truly falling for you , even if they seem like
they are. It's just the internet,
and the person at the other end of your monitor could be ANYONE,
even a researcher who wants to see exactly what you would try to do with
someone's vulnerable mind. That "girl" who showed up last summer but
disappeared last fall could have even been a DIRTY OLD MAN!!
[Can my liberal atheist friends say "ad
hominem"? He went from trying to define how NCCG's beliefs are "worse
than" polygamy to defining how he thinks Warren (I suppose, since this
entire page is devoted to dismantling him) could be some "dirty old
man" on the other side of the computer. Then after making this attack,
drops the point. Why mention it if he isn't going to develop his point
further?]
Almost all of the source material used for the
creation of this web site was provided to me by Chris himself. If I had to
print it all out and put it in a box, it would be difficult to find the
third party material. This has been primarily a one-man operation.
[DUH!
DUH! DUH! Play Mission Impossible theme
at this “one-man operation” thing.]
Let
me get my MAGIC 8-BALL out... let
me see.. Chris is about to call me some
names... i see "liar" floating in there.. oh yes, here's more.. he is calling me a hacker
and a criminal again, yes, I see it! ... (if you missed those posts in nccgcybercommunity, I have a few of them linked
here).
[I find it ironic how Concern seems to not really care
for modern prophecy, but resorts to mock "divination" when mocking
Warren.]
Why isn't he calling the police, guys? Is it
because he really believes the police are all "satanists" anyway and there is no point? Let me look
into my Magic 8-Ball again... [There he goes, divining
again.] There it is.. in the REAL WORLD, it is illegal to deliberately
report a crime that did not actually happen [good luck
reporting a supernatural crime in the secular humanist world]. They
charge you with something like "filing a false
police report". That or, if they think you were genuinely
mistaken, they are nicer about it and just
close the case.
In fact, I can not imagine Chris has
any desire whatsoever for any
police department, especially not the local police in Arvika, to ask me about my source material. I don't
mind speaking with the police, of course. They would find my source
material to be worth a few raised eyebrows, and they would find the
sources for my material to be legal and, better yet, genuine. [Listen as Concern more or less pats his own
back. "They would" NOT "I think they would". He has done
this on more than one occassion and I've caught him on it a few times . .
. he thinks too highly of himself.] If the police need to
speak with me, my email address is on this web site
(nccg.concern@hotmail.com), and I have never had a issue with identifying myself to legitimate
authorities (just not to paranoid, delusional, potentially dangerous cult
leaders, kthxbye).
So. When Chris starts
wailing that I am a professional criminal, hacker,
(insert other disparaging term here), you could respond by telling
him to either call the police or
shut his trap. I can even dig up a
few phone numbers if he would like to speak with police officers in odd
locations throughout the world who would probably find a phone call from
him to be most intriguing. (Where exactly were the computers I hacked,
anyway?) [Drop the phone numbers in my e-mail box at
derekrumpler@hotmail.com --
I'd call them just to verify this -- I'm sure we could also get you for
libel also, if we wanted to press the issue.]
The concepts
of "legal" and "not legal" are not
overlapping and broad categories, like "Nice" and "Not nice". An activity
will be determined by a judge or jury, in a real, live court, to have been
been illegal
or not. I can not imagine
that any of my source material, at any stage of its acquisition, was
obtained in a way that would result in a "guilty" verdict being called
against me (or anyone else, if that matters), and that's that.
["Legal" and "not legal" are not as much the
issue as "honest" and "dishonest".]
Second
point:
Olive Branch, page 578, top of page, to the right,
states:
When
Prophets are Silent
The
Patriarch-prophets are under a commandment and a covenant not to reveal
all they know lest those on the lower levels of light choke on the
light or surrender their free agency in order to follow the
prophet like unto Moses.
CUUULTIC, yes indeed.
It is typical for
dangerous cults to spoon feed the information to the members slowly, step
by step, as opposed with sitting it all on the table from the very start
(like real churches do). [Which
ones?]
[I really could care less if the "cult watchers" define this
as "cultic" or not. Human relations can be considered cultic in the sense
that if I want to, I can choose to withhold certain information about
myself to those I trust less. Must I submit an application detailing all
my faults and weaknesses before someone can become my friend? Imagine how
profitable dating sites would be if profiles were full of information like
this.]
Oh.
That last "or surrender their free agency in order to follow the
prophet like unto Moses" thrown in at the end IS A NICE ONE!! Chris does this throughout the great
bulk of his writing. In my observation, he takes something that is just
BAD, or CRAP, or
CULTIC, or YOU NAME IT, and tosses something that sounds nice
afterwards or maybe even ALL AROUND
IT , and hopes that you
will just suck it all down just like you are a goldfish. Did you? [So
all of his writing is bad, crap, cultic? Isn’t it weird that only this
author believes that? Isn’t it even weirder that he hasn’t even read most
of it? And yet, isn’t it sort of understandable now why he said he can’t
absorb it in an organised way?] [I'm sorry
that Warren chooses to let people learn for themselves very often rather
than "force feeding" answers to them. Oh well.]
Third
point:
Olive Branch, page xlvi (that's in the section in the
very beginning), middle of page, in the big paragraph labeled "a.", states:
The
public teaching or preaching of polygamy in exclusively monogamous
cultures shall not be permitted in order to avoid (a) unnecessary public
controversy, where a neutral position shall be adopted, and (b)
distracting the witness of the Church from its call to preach Christ
crucified;
Reasons
(a) and (b) are listed here... but in my opinion, Chris must have left out reason (c). I will
write it and add it for him now.
and
(c) avoid exposing investigators to our polygamy views and practices
before we have had a chance to gain their confidence and talk them out of
their resistance to it.
[And reason (d) so that people can learn that we are human
beings and that polygamy is not a major tenant of our doctrine nor of our
way of life..]
On this train of thought, I am going to do an
experiment here.
I am going to load www.nccg.org into another
browser window.
Then, I am going to click "Edit", and then "Find
(on This Page)", and then I am going to type into the little search box
the word "poly". This will catch most of the forms of the word POLYGAMY. In fact, here, look:
Now
I click "Find Next"... and guess what.
The word POLYGAMY
or any of its derivatives do not exist on the front page of www.nccg.org,
and yet it forms a core belief (very core) for NCCG. [Polygamy
is a core belief? Then how come none of the members is affected? Polygamy
has never been a central discussion topic in the groups. No one’s
theological worldview or faith or you-name-it has ever stumbled across
polygamy. If you went around and interviewed the members, 90% wouldn’t
have even heard of it and the rest would have only come across it
theologically. Now if the author had been somewhat more serious in his
research he would have found articles OUTSIDE the polygamy website that
explain NCCG position.]
(oh please God, make the music on this web page stop!)
[Lovely how Mr. Concern has now resorted to take the
Lord's Name in vain.]
If you dig down.. and dig..
and dig... without getting distracted, and without
taking a piss break... [I really wanted to use
this word earlier instead of "peeing" in "peeing contest"] a
century later, you will find polygamy articles on www.nccg.org. Lots
of them. But you have to look a while. And, they still won't
contain EVERYTHING. [Dig
and dig and dig, huh?… you could just do a Google
search within the website…] [Or e-mail me and I'll personally
give you the link.]
www.nccg.org
is OVER 52 MEGABYTES OF TEXT
ONLY, not counting the images! Burying the polygamy
articles in such a web site is not exactly forthcoming, is it?!?!?!?!?
Maybe www.nccg.org should replace its disclaimer with this:
WARNING
WE
ARE A SMALL POLYGAMY CULT IN SWEDEN! NOW
ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS OVER THE INTERNET! (donations appreciated,
check or money order accepted)
|
--------------------------------------------- PS:
I am not a satanist PPS: I am not in a
coven PPPS: I am not being helped by covens
or satanists PPPPS:
I am not a prisoner in a coven
|
2.
The idea that the "meatier" doctrines is concealed and only revealed
to those who have been lullued into a false
sense of secutity would be laughable
were it not such a serious allegation. ALL our beliefs, doctrines
and practices are clearly stated on our website at
www.nccg.org.
The author admits there is a lot of material and that he was overwhelmed
by it so that is probably why his picture of us is so patchy ... a bit
like the way the Jehivah's Witnesses assemble
their theology from scriptural ping-pong. |
My Comment |
Corresponding
statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis
added) |
Okay
folks... back to "nccg_concern" writing style
now.
First point: The applicable portion of my text was
based upon my observance of NCCG's belief in
widespread, categorical occurrences of "SRA" (Satanic Ritual Abuse). In
reality, actual SRA is very, very uncommon, and the chance of SRA
happening to you, or anyone you know, is so minuscule as to be close to
zero.
[But if you advertise yourself as someone who invites SRA victims to help
them, there is a chance that some will show up].
Despite any frightening memories that may have come forth during
"sessions", these memories are extremely unlikely to have been related to
actual SRA [Says who? And what do you do in the rare
instance where a memory wasn't supressed and you KNOW it but may have
forgotten other details? This has happened at least once in my
ministry.]. If you research SRA with a critical and objective frame
of mind, you are likely to come to this conclusion as well. For a starting
point, you could read the articles provided here
and here.
[If
your research on SRA is restricted on the links provided by the Skeptic’s Dictionary, I can guarantee that you will
come to that conclusion.] ["With a critical and
objective mind" . . . this coming from someone who can't be reasoned into
believing SRA exists -- very objective indeed.]
It
is correct that I subscribe to the belief that categorical
conspiracy-theories regarding widespread SRA, like NCCG propagates, are fictional (as stated earlier,
please do your own research on this, there is no need to take my word on
this point [or
on any other]).
By definition, this means that any parent who is actually accused of
committing "SRA" is being wrongly accused [even if
they do do it, because somehow saying it doesn't exists makes it more
"real"], and any actual abuse which did occur can become a tool for
psychological manipulation due to interjection of SRA-related
intentions.
Second point: Chris is downplaying the nature of
"spiritual parenting" in his comments. Young adults who are
deeply-involved NCCG members have been observed
to psychologically cut themselves off from their actual parents to such an
extent that they will cease referring to them as "Mom" and "Dad" when
discussing them in the presence of other NCCG
members (such as in the DFD chat room) [I suppose Concern means me. I refer to my biological
parents as "Mom" and "Dad" but do not have as close a relationship with
them as I do Warren's family bcause of influences unrelated to NCCG.
Indeed, when I was LDS, I use to refer an elderly missionary couple as
"Mom" and "Dad" but when they lost my trust, those names stopped. But at
the time, I viewed them as being more of my parents than NCCG does. As
such, I call Warren "Dad" and Larsen "Mom" by choice.]. They will
instead fervently refer to their "adopted" NCCG
parents by these names, functionally marginalizing their perception of
their relationship with the actual parents
to primarily being physical in nature.
[There are no more than 2 people who call C.C. Warren “dad” in the DFD room presently, and one of them does not
participate in the sessions often. Whether these two people (who are both
men, incidentally), have psychologically cut themselves from their actual
parents I am in no position to know and nor is anyone else who has
observed this over the Internet. I do know however that one of them is
about C.C. Warren’s age and in daily contact with his parents.] [And as the second male, I am in almost daily contact with
my parents, inspite of disagreements which I do not care to go into on a
private website. However, I'm sure according to the "cult watchers" I'm
the one being "misguided" here and all parents are "naturally
good".]
This
can later be followed by the NCCG member making
drastic, life-affecting, and potentially dangerous decisions while
fostering a perspective of disregard for the actual parents. If the
parents are still in close contact with the NCCG
member due to life circumstances and become aware of the situation, they
will naturally encourage the NCCG member to
cease their dangerous level of involvement. [My biological parents know many of our most
"dangerous" beliefs and could care a fig -- they trust me THAT much.]
The fact that the relationship with the parents may have been
marginalized to an extent would be an aid for NCCG's core recruitment efforts and a problem for the
concerned parents. [That,
then, goes for these two men? I happen to have talked with both, and in
neither case has there been reported friction with their parents because
of the fact that C.C. Warren “fathers” them spiritually. These are solid
facts. What nccg_concern has to say on this
matter is not observation but speculation.]
Third
point: My original text combines these two pieces of information into
one general topic. It is correct as it is written; however, more detail
and clarity could have been effected by breaking
this into three delimited topics instead of one. I will leave it as it is
for the time being, as I believe the other areas of my web site do explain
these points accurately enough. I might redo it later.
Fourth
point: Much of the time in NCCG, it is not a
matter of NCCG
"insisting" that "satanic" parents be replaced. Parents do not have to be
considered "satanic" to be psychologically replaced by "spiritual" Mom and
Dad. The "SRA parents" are just one tool of many which can be used to help
build a controlling relationship through undue influence. The whole
"spiritual parenting" deal in NCCG has been
observed as being used to usurp the legitimate [I
could argue against the legitimacy claim in many
circumstances] parent-child relationship in order to build
trust and, eventually, a controlling relationship. [Again,
the “parenting” goes for just two people. The sample is too poor to draw
such a conclusion, obviously.]
PS:
This type of parental or family "adoption" is a fairly common means of
influence within dangerous cults. [Yep,
so beware: the Catholics do it too, all the time.]
|
3.
We do NOT renounce our biological parents or view them as being "satanic"
(probably the worst misrepresentation of all). We honour our
parents in Yahweh and teach our people to do the same - to love and
cherish them and to set a good example to them if they are unbelievers.
Obviously, where their parents are unbelievers, we spiritually parent them
as all churches do (whether as priests, pastors, etc) and hold them
to Biblical standards. The only parents we do insist that new
members totally renounce are those who are satanists who have sexuallly
abused and tortured them all their lives. However it seems that
the author is one of those who does not believe
that SRA is real - let him tell that to the many SRA victims who come to
us for help because the likes of him will not believe them! He knows nothing of deliverance. |
My
diagram was an effort to organize and clarify two of Chris' leadership
structure diagrams which I found on http://www.nccg.org/CBQ-HP-Index.html.
Essentially, my diagram is just one of his diagrams placed on top of the
other one, with the missing items in the resulting diagram filled in
horizontally in the way which should have been logical based on the
accompanying text description. I did not know at the time whether or not
Chris' diagrams accurately reflect NCCG's
leadership structure, past or present, but it seemed like a source that
was likely to have some accuracy to it. Later in the research, it appeared
to me that Chris' diagrams were NOT
accurate, but more on that later.
I could not represent the female
"eldress" authority line in the same diagram
because Chris did not include any diagrams outlining its progression any
further down than "deaconess cell". I could not safely assume that it was
the identical to the men's diagram. So, considering that there may be more
than one "elders house" possible (this was an assumption on my part), I
mirrored the male side for the right hand side of my image and did not
include the female side. [How
about being accurate about the “Eldress” and
“Deaconess Cell” boxes and indicating lack of information for the rest of
them? I guess that’s much more work than mirror-copy-and-paste though. Or,
how about NOT making up a new diagram and using the existing ones as it
happens in this page? Wouldn’t that be a lot more accurate?]
It
is possible that the idea that there could be more than one elder's house
is incorrect. I knew that when I made it, but decided that in any case, it
did resemble the source material well enough to provide a reasonable
graphic overview of the structure indicated in Chris' original diagrams. I
could only work with what material I had, and the diagrams did not fit
together perfectly. [For
nccg_concern’s information, what serious people
do when they do research is indicate “lack of information” where there is
lack of information instead of making things up. Is this to show that in
the other places of this website where there was not sufficient
information and gaps are created, the author just speculates and fills
these gaps as he sees fit. The result is bound to
come out wrong.]
I
thought I did an O.K. job on my diagram, as it was based very directly on
the source material. However, at this later stage of my research, I do NOT
believe that ANY of these diagrams do a good job at actually
representing NCCG's authority structure. Mine is probably
wrong except for the very bottom portions, and the originals appear to
represent wishful thinking for an organization that may have initially
been intended to be larger in size. GIGO.*
Here are Chris' original
diagrams.
*An
informal rule holding that the integrity of output is dependent on the
integrity of input. [Also,
good things can get screwed up in the process and come out ruined. No one
asked nccg_concern to process any items, and
definitely going about messing up diagrams and coming up with something
wrong is not sufficient excuse to blame the ones who created these
diagrams to begin with.] |
4.
His diagram of NCCG leadership structure is
shere bunkum and is really quite
shameless:
[Adding
the rest of C.C. Warren’s answer from the NCCG
Cyber Community thread for accuracy’s sake:]
The top of this tree is a pastor, not me, of which
there are very many, and these pastors are overseen by a Bishop or
Metropolitan Pastor. The Bishops are pretty much independent as for
example our Bishop in India who runs many
congregations. This he does with practically no interference.
NCCG
is run overall by a Presiding Patriarchate consisting of three men and
three women. Decisions are jointly made. And contrary to what he says, I
have not always been head. The Church was led by Gunnar Mjølsvik at one time
who maintains a headship position over me today as part of our authority
checks and balances. These things the author has not researched eithert because he can't be bothered to read the
material or because he is plain disonest. Matter affecting the whole Church are voted on by the
whole Church in Conference.
|
Point
#1:
first sentence: huh? I think I get it.
Point #2:
The
referenced section of the first version of my report was, incidentally,
based on incomplete source material. Oops! I had found a number of
documents which supported, through the contextual and other indications,
the position that certain marriages were of lesser value than others (IE:
partners found through dating and relationships done while part of "The
World" were not necessarily God's will, among other things). [You make this claim -- now back it instead of insisting we
take you for your word.] It wasn't until several months later that
I uncovered enough details on how NCCG handles
its marriages, both pre-existing and within-NCCG, to be able to rewrite it more
accurately.
The old text did not accuse NCCG of being "marriage-busters", but it also did not
accurately describe the marriage perspective. The section has since been
divided up into several separate sections and moved around to another area
of the web site. |
5.
We are misreported in our belief about marriage do, the author
claiming that unless sanctions a marriage, it is not valid. He has
not read our materials very carefully. We consider ALL marriages of
consent valid for this life time. What we HAVE said is that marriages not
of God do not continue into the eternities. No doubt he wants to accuse of
of being marriage-busters which we absolutely
are not. Our view is diamatrically the opposite.
[Adding
the rest of C.C. Warren’s answer:]
There
is tons more but these stick out as obviously false.
This
is what happens when you don't ask the person concerned. By all means
checvk up the writings afterwards to verfity/contradict it but make sure you study it all.
After all, isn't that what we tell people to do with the
Bible?
This
man has much to answer for. |
My
report never claimed or assumed, in any state of its existence, that the
text in question was written by Chris or an NCCG
member, IE: The "pretending" never happened. My report was also expressly
stated to NOT exist as a mirror for exclusively NCCG-authored written material.
The article in
question was posted by Chris in nccgcybercommunity, along with what was, in context,
an obviously very supportive set of comments by Chris. Chris' comments
were as follows:
A
personal note from myself: Please be aware that the forces behind getting
women to dress immodestly in order to inflame the passions of men are
demonic, and are spicifically under the
direction of Lilith, Hecate, Astoreth (Astarte) and Jezebel. This is not a minor matter. And
specifically a women will not get free of Lilith and her cohorts from her
life until she has acknowledged these dress issues, unmasked the lies that
the demoness has got her to believe about herself (normally it is a
satanic, fleshy desire to be worshipped/admired, etc.. i.e. become a
whore) and desires only to inflame the passions of/be admired sexually
by/etc her lawful husband. For the men too who have Lilith problems, there
is a need to be honest about the seduction of Lilith's idolatry and her ways of getting you to
worship female beauty as 'goddesses'. I myself recently destroyed a
beautiful and cherished collection of Greek figurines I owned when
Yahweh showed me that Lilith lay behind them posing as the supposedly
harmless "spirit of beauty", using the excuse that Yahweh created female
beauty and therefore we could at the very least admire the artistic forms
of women as His 'gift'. I know few men capable of doing that and not
getting sucked into that demonic trap for which such supposedly 'innocent'
admiration is, in truth, the first step long a greasy slope leading to
pornography, fornication anhd
adultery.
Be
wise, be obedient, be true.
[This followed as a comment to a lengthy article by another author who
analysed in detail how “modest” dressing should be. Notice that in C.C.
Warren’s comment, there is no mention of HOW to be modest but of the
importance of modesty in general. It does not acknowledge the other
author’s advice, which, in my opinion, was quite conservative
anyway.]
NCCG
does have dress standards for women, but due to privacy concerns at this
time, I am not in a position to discuss them. [NCCG has at no time published a list of detailed dress
standards for women, except very few things about dressing modestly and an
article about head-covering which can be found in www.nccg.org.
Nevertheless, I am curious as to what sort of privacy concerns hinder
nccg_concern from being a little more accurate
on the subject rather than make speculations and generalise (speaking
vaguely about “holiness standards”).] [Again, I wonder
about these so-called "privacy issues" -- was he looking into the windows
of "The Compound" like some peeping tom?]
This
section of the report was later expanded, and due to the additional
information, the two topics of chauvinism and dress code were moved into
separate sections. Information was added to both sections and very little
was removed. Any parts that were removed or changed would not have
affected Chris' claims that the source of the text was somehow being
misrepresented. |
A
couple of others have been looking at this material and pointed out to me
that some of it isn't even NCCG but taken from
posts from non-NCCG people,
e.g.
This
group is male chauvinistic; holiness standards for women
enforced
http://www.geocities.com/nccg_concern/beliefs.html
This
isn't even NCCG material but has been lifted
from a post put in one of the groups for discussion purposes (even if we
agree with much of it). For one pretending to quote NCCG sources this is very
deceptive.
It
is quite obvious that the author is anti-Torah and pro-Western
culture. |