Church of Wells/YMBBA Ministries

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?

11/10/2013 10:18 pm  #1


n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta 
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).
[Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think; see dek- in Indo-European roots.]


Discussion continued from:    Interesting ideas start on page 21.

On 'submission'

2 Peter wrote:

concernedhere wrote:

Hythlodaeus wrote:

Interesting sermon by Ryan Ringnald on "subjection," "headship," and obedience.

Worth listening to. He names himself and the other "elders" at least three times as being the preeminent Voice of God and the general theme that the group must obey them. And how original sin is very specifically Eve's fault; that it is the lot of all women to atone by being obedient and submissive. 

Ryan's sermon here illustrates their failure to understand the full counsel of Scripture. Groups like the CoW are usually built off of pulling select Scriptures and select teachings out of the context of Scripture. This 'sermon' is an example of this very thing. They begin not with a Biblical definition of submission and subjection. Instead, they begin with their OWN definition of submission and subjection and then read other Scriptures through their own lens of submission and subjection. The New Testament teaching on submission is one of mutual submission. Paul writes about this in Ephesisans 5. The example of submission is the submission of Christ to God the Father. This was a submission of humility and sacrifice. Ryan's un-Biblical definition of submission and subjection is built around their own power-hungry and prideful understanding of ecclesiology. 

We see this in their 'manifesto' when they proclaim themselves to the the spiritual protectors of the church here on earth. This is dangerous teaching because it consolidates power into the hands of a few elders while ignoring a basic principle of the 'priesthood of the believer' that we find in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 10 tells us that we are empowered to approach the throne of God with boldness because of the work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews is a passionate plea to Christians not to return to the system of priests and blood offerings and sacrifices. Why are priests not necessary today? Because there is a high priest (Jesus) who has made one sacrifice - a once for all sacrifice. Placing themselves with this much authority is dangerous and un-Biblical. Christ himself is the spiritual protector of the church. The correction that elders/Pastors are to give must come in love. 

Just listening to any of the elders' sermons is saddening because of what the sermons does not illustrate. Paul writes in Galatians that the fruit of the filling of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentlessness and self-control. Despite the screaming antics of the so-called elders, what Scripture actually says about what Christian life looks like is laid out in the book of Galatians! The fruit of the Spirit is contrasted with the works of the flesh in Galatians 5. I cannot read the hearts of the elders - that is not my calling or my job. It is the job of the Spirit of God. Yet, every follower of Jesus Christ is given the fruit of the Spirit. Where is the love? Where is the peace? Where is the patience? Where is the goodness? Where is the self-control? Where are the basic fruits that the Spirit of God grants to his children? 

Hear hear! I agree completely. Thank you for using Biblical text as a basis for "compare and contrast..." discernment. I agree with commentary using scripture as a basis for evaluation of their doctrine, since they profess it to be their own guiding source.

Other bits and pieces around the forum:
Doctrine Q&A/Church of Wells rebuttal
What they believe - combined thread
Thoughts on women - old thread 
New Recruit - analysis                


11/17/2013 10:24 am  #2

Re: Dogmata

Just reading through all the thread links you have referenced here.  Very interesting stuff.

Somewhere there is a recent post about the "sin" of drinking soda and a reference to a conversation on how one selects what to do from minute to minute based on "if the Lord wills it.". I am curious about this aspect of COW doctrine.  How is the Lord's will determined, and to what degree?  Everytime I ask my family member in this group how things are going I receive a "just seeking the Lord's will" reply.  Okay, so what does that look like, and when does one know when one has found it, and how is it revealed, and so on.

Since this thread is now dedicated to dogma(ta) I pose the question here.  Interested in COW member thoughts if any care to explain.

Heb 4:12

11/17/2013 2:49 pm  #3

Re: Dogmata

You know, their perspective on "the Lord's will" is something I don't think we are privy to. Remember, in their minds, us carnal, unsaved heathens are incapable of understanding the things of God. Now, that won't stop my inquisitive mind from making a guess, so here's my attempt. 

For my attempt to make sense, I'll first reveal what I (kinda) agree with their perspective. I believe that as a Christian, we are given the tools necessary to discern it. It's like being a husband or wife. You know someone well enough, you know what to do (or to not do) in order to please them. Sometimes you may get it wrong, but overall, because of your relationship with them, you have a firm grasp on what their 'will" would be. I need to buy flowers for my lady. Well, I know she told me once that she likes a certain type of flower, therefore, I can reasonably conclude that that type will please her. My knowledge of her favorite flower is rooted in my knowledge and love for her.

As Christians, we have the bible to reveal to us what "the Lord's will" is. Don't hate or murder? Check. Love others? Check. Look out for widows and orphans? Got it. I don't need to ask or pray to God if I should be giving the extra PowerBar I packed for the day to the hungry homeless man outside the market. I should automatically assume that this is something that would please God. I know this because of my love and knowledge of him.

Now, about CoW. I think they have it wrong. I think they may view "The Lord's will" like a clueless child having to ask their parent's permission for every single act. "Dad, may I play with my toys? May I watch TV? Should I be working on my homework?" That child has NO idea what would please or displease his/her father. The act of the child asking all the time is rooted in ignorance. It's a harsh analogy, but it's almost like slavery.

So, I think that's where they start. They don't "assume" or "best guess" what the Lord's will is. I think they pray first, then "consult scripture." I think they then wait for a clear conscious or validation from an elder or "a word" from another member. I think they also look toward deams. I'll have to look through their testimonies again, but I think some members make reference to dreams.

Now - hear this - I don't deny that God can work through these things. However, I also don't think we should treat them as requisites to act. Like I said above, I don't think I need to "wait for a word" or "have a dream" before I love others or offer a hungry man some food. I don't think I should look for the sky to part before looking for a job. Scripture says I should provide for my family; I shouldn't have to ask God's permission to do so. 

Remember that, as seems to be all things, this act is rooted in total dependence. They are no longer independent persons capable of making their own decisions. They are conditioned to rely on the wisdom and guidance of those they submit to (wives to their husbands, husbands to the elders). 

2 Peter, there is a fascinating book out there called "Just Do Something" and it really addresses the idea of "Paralisys by analysis" in Christianity. We are so consumed with "seeking" the Lord's will that we often forget to "do" it. He's already revealed His will!

Clearly, CoW doesn't get that. Here's the thread about soda...

And PS: I'd love for a CoW representative (namely an elder or senior member) to reply. It's been almost a year and no one has said a word. We're open to your answers CoW!



11/26/2013 6:02 pm  #4

Re: Dogmata

Here's what seems to be the bottom line for Welldurs' doctrine:

That which thundered through Scotland and England (again), must thunder through Wells, Texas.

Paul  → Augustine → Calvin → John Knox → Spurgeon → Cory McLaughlin/Daniel Pursley/Sean Morris
[34 AD]   [390 AD]     [1509]      [1545]           [1860]                       [2010]

So there you go. 2000 years. You know what's really exciting? We figured out what's going on with Cory's hair. It's Paul the Apostle's hair.
I'm guessing the Welldurs' most important doctrinal document must be the "Putting Off Thy Shoes" treatise.

However - 


Last edited by Hythlodaeus (11/26/2013 6:04 pm)


12/07/2013 5:18 pm  #5

Re: Dogmata

anon wrote:

Jesus Christ's preaching was rarely, if ever, preceded by verbal pleas of "I love you", nor was it followed with such statements that this world holds to be the foremost proof of love.

How does he know?

He exposed sin, condemned hypocrisy, opposed the leaders of His day, cleansed the Temple, gave warnings, preached on hell more than heaven, and was in danger of death on many fronts because of His sin-exposing preaching - this is Biblical Judgment.

According to Paul? Or which writer, exactly?

Everything Christ did verily is LOVE, but it was not what this world or carnal Christianity deems as love.

How does he know? Who said? Apostle Paul or a Scottish preacher?

My reader, when reading a text which is on this website, please stop and pause when you see a verse quoted or cited.
Consider the scripture carefully – its force, its wording, its offensiveness, and how unashamedly it was delivered by God-incarnate.

What is this guy's deal? Seriously. Why are there people running around this planet right now, convinced that the teachings of Jesus Christ were hard and mean-spirited and offensive, and convincing others as well? Who started this in the first place? Oh wait, that's right, some Puritans. Who came to the New World because they pissed off everybody in Europe, and then perpetrated this garbage for the next 200 years. They weren't "persecuted" - they were a crazy cult!

Please keep in mind that Christ was criminalized and hated BECAUSE He loved men, but they HATED His love.

Please keep in mind that there are millions of people who believe otherwise.
Please keep in mind that these kinds of statements and rhetoric are unfair, inappropriate and untruthful, presented in an over-generalized form of sentence structure. "...they HATED his love" is a babyish, immature ignorant uneducated sentence. Who? Everybody? According to whom? Who told you that, and how did they know?
Please keep in mind that there are very good treatment programs and pharmacueticals available for this kind of frank paranoia and group hysteria. You don't have to suffer.

     Thread Starter

12/07/2013 5:22 pm  #6

Re: Dogmata

grendel wrote:

OMG! First they had the John Howie thing. (I can't find it anymore in the threads here.) Now they're trying to break down John Knox for us.
Look, Ryan, you must have figured out by now there's better educated adults following you guys. Come on, sharpen it up.

Let the Truth be Known!   09/24/2013
“GOD, OFTEN SUFFERED THE WICKED TO TRIUMPH FOR A WHILE, AND EXPOSED HIS CHOSEN CONGREGATION TO MOCKERY, DANGERS, AND APPARENT DESTRUCTION, IN ORDER TO ABASE THEIR SELF-CONFIDENCE, AND INDUCE THEM TO LOOK TO HIM FOR DELIVERANCE AND VICTORY. If they turned unfeignedly to the Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be converted into joy, and followed by success, than he doubted that Israel was finally victorious over the Benjamites, after being twice repulsed with ignominy [shame]. The cause in which they were engaged would, in spite of all opposition, prevail in Scotland. It was the eternal truth of the eternal God which they maintained; it might be oppressed for a time, but would ultimately triumph.” (John Knox – Stirling, Scotland, late 1560 – Scots Worthies)

Ryan's commentary

John Knox preached the words quoted above just before Scotland was almost universally turned away from Rome in the year 1560.
Yea, Roman Catholicism, with all of its unbiblical superstitions, inhumane cruelties, and soul-damning heresies, was nearly shut out of Scotland right after this message was preached. 
 ... when John Knox preached the above excerpt and the sermon it was a part of, the Protestants in Scotland, and the cause of God in their day, were in dire straits.
Many had treacherously betrayed their brethren and their consciences in cowardice!
They had recently retreated from a Protestant stronghold in Edinburgh. The French army was still in Scotland defending the cause of the Romish Church and they were unable to find assistance from Queen Elizabeth in England.
John Knox...was not afraid...after preaching this message in the power of the Spirit of God, the tides began to change!
Yes, through the foolishness of preaching the Lord Jesus Christ went on the move again! Bless His name!
The French and their military were cast out of Scotland, the knowledge of much Scriptural truth was disseminated throughout the nation, the false doctrines of Rome were manifested on every side, and multitudes prepared their hearts to seek the LORD!
May the Lord have mercy on our nation.

The World According to Garp Ryan Ringnald

►   Roman Catholicism, with all of its unbiblical superstitions, inhumane cruelties, and soul-damning heresies, was nearly shut out of Scotland right after this message was preached. 
►   The French and their military were cast out of Scotland, the knowledge of much Scriptural truth was disseminated throughout the nation, the false doctrines of Rome were manifested on every side...

Um. No.

Important historical figures to know:
Mary, Queen of Scots and Queen Elizabeth
Mary of Guise, Queen of James V of Scotland and mother of Mary, Queen of Scots
James V of Scotland died fighting the English. He was nicknamed "King of the Commons."  He would travel around Scotland disguised as a common man, describing himself as the "Gudeman of Ballengeich."
Ironic considering Church of Wells' fear of women: legend has it that before his death, he said "it came wi a lass, it'll gang wi a lass" (meaning "It began with a girl and it will end with a girl") - a reference to Scotland's powerful woman Marjorie Bruce, daughter of Robert the Bruce, or to Scottish mythology.

Treaty representatives
    France: Jean de Monluc, Bishop of Valence, Charles de la Rochefoucault, Sieur de Randan.
    England: William Cecil and Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury and York.
    Lords of the Congregation: Archbishop of St Andrews, John Bellenden of Auchnoul, William Maitland. 

Lords of the Congregation
Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange; Archibald Campbell, 5th Earl of Argyll; James Stewart, Prior of St Andrews; Andrew Leslie, 5th Earl of Rothes; John Graham, 4th Earl of Menteith; Patrick Ruthven, 3rd Lord Ruthven; Lord Ogilvy; David, 2nd Lord Drummond; Patrick, Master of Lindsay; William Douglas, Laird of Lochleven; John Wishart, Laird of Pitarro; William Murray, Laird of Tullibardine; Colin Campbell, Laird of Glenorchy; Alexander Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn; the Earl of Morton; Lord Erskine; Robert, Lord Boyd; Lord Ochiltree; Hugh Campbell, Sheriff of Ayr; Laird of Calder.
Religious advisors: Alexander Gordon, Bishop of Galloway; John Knox; Master Christopher Goodman of England; John Willock. All English-influenced

Lords that withheld allegiance
William Keith, 4th Earl Marischal; the Earl of Athol; Lord Forbes; James Douglas, Laird of Drumlanrig; the Laird of Lochinvar; the Laird of Garlies.

The Treaty of Edinburgh (also known as the Treaty of Leith) was drawn up on July 5, 1560 between the Commissioners of Queen Elizabeth of England with the assent of the Scottish Lords of the Congregation, and the French representatives of King Francis II of France (husband of Mary Queen of Scots) to formally conclude the Siege of Leith and replace the Auld Alliance with France with a new Anglo-Scottish accord, while maintaining the peace between England and France agreed by the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis
It was agreed between France and England that all their land and naval forces would withdraw from Scotland. Mary and Francis II of France should not use the arms and signs of England and Ireland in their heraldry. Mary and Francis would fulfill the representations made by the Scottish nobility the next day.

The rule of Mary of Guise in Scotland was supported by French troops. Scottish Protestants challenged her rule in the Reformation Crisis.
John Knox admonishing Mary Queen of Scots

During the ensuing Siege of Leith, French troops fortified the port and town of Leith against an English and Scottish Protestant force. The English army was invited into Scotland by the Treaty of Berwick, the Lords of the Congregation.
The treaty was concluded on 6 July 1560 just short of a month after the death of Mary of Guise, Queen Regent in Scotland. The fortifications at Leith, Inchkeith and Dunbar Castle were removed and the French garrisons left Scotland. 

This treaty is frequently confused with the acts of the Reformation Parliament of 1560 which met in August, and sought to establish the Protestant church in Scotland. However that treaty was not ratified until 1567 by Mary, Queen of Scots, the reigning monarch.  

Sources: A Source Book of Scottish History, vol. 2,  Donaldson, Nelson (1953), pp 171-172, from Foedera, vol. 15, 593-7.
Foedera, vol. xv, 593-6 (text in full): Calendar State Papers Scotland, vol. i, (1898), 442-444.
HMC Salisbury, Hatfield Manuscripts, vol. i (1883), 245-6.

The quote about John Knox's sermon comes from Howie's book, page 148, second paragraph.



     Thread Starter

12/10/2013 6:03 pm  #7

Re: Dogmata

Cross-posting here from the "Voices" section.

Funny how we help them appear younger and more immature, less sophisticated and worldly, than they actually really are. They want us to. They put on the granny skirt and prairie bonnet, bam!, instant transformation into virgin Quivering daughters and "Amish" cliche men - robust lads plowing the fields and tending the cows.

99% of them are typical mainstream American society. Kids born in the 80s and 90s. Cheerleaders and high school athletes. Spaghetti-strap tank tops, designer clothing and i-Pods. They drove Honda Accords and Camrys and Chevy trucks, went to Homecoming and saw all the same movies you did. They bar-hopped and liked Britney Spears and Hannah Montana.
Some of them have been previously married or lived with boyfriends/girlfriends. Some of them have children from previous relationships. The women, too.

The long skirts paired with t-shirts and poor grooming? It's nothing to do with 'modesty'. It's about appearances. Like a nun's habit, it identifies them as a something. And it's about compliance with rules. A physical gesture of philosophical obedience and submission to authority. If they were genuinely consistent with Old Testament behavior and applying it in this century, they'd wear the clothing of that time, too.

• No fabric blends. That means those poly/cotton skirts are out, ladies. Check the label on your t-shirts and get rid of the unlawful ones. Probably most of those plaid shirts and khaki pants and heretical and not Biblical. 

• Fringe on the borders of all your garments.

• A ribbon of blue on the fringe.

• Blue tassels on the corners.

• Oh, and those crocheted tea-cozy/Rastafarian hats that the ladies are using as "coverings" - not Biblical. You can substitute a tea towel with blue trim.

This, of course, is a Renaissance perspective. Those silly Italians; Moses and Jesus and Paul didn't wear pants. They wore skirts.

According to Numbers, if these commandments - "which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses" - are disobeyed, the congregation has to do a burnt offereing of one young bullock and a baby goat. If people sin ignorantly, they're supposed to bring a "sin offering" of one yearling female goat. 

Hey, I didn't make this up.

Deuteronomy 22
King James Version (KJV)

11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

Numbers 15
King James Version (KJV)

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you,
3 And will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock:
4 Then shall he that offereth his offering unto the Lord bring a meat offering of a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of oil.
5 And the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice, for one lamb.
6 Or for a ram, thou shalt prepare for a meat offering two tenth deals of flour mingled with the third part of an hin of oil.
7 And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of wine, for a sweet savour unto the Lord.
8 And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice in performing a vow, or peace offerings unto the Lord:
9 Then shall he bring with a bullock a meat offering of three tenth deals of flour mingled with half an hin of oil.
10 And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
11 Thus shall it be done for one bullock, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid.
12 According to the number that ye shall prepare, so shall ye do to every one according to their number.
13 All that are born of the country shall do these things after this manner, in offering an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
14 And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord; as ye do, so he shall do.
15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord.
16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
17 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
18 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land whither I bring you,
19 Then it shall be, that, when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord.
20 Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering: as ye do the heave offering of the threshingfloor, so shall ye heave it.
21 Of the first of your dough ye shall give unto the Lord an heave offering in your generations.
22 And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,
23 Even all that the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;
24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the Lord, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.
25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance:
26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.
27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before theLord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth theLord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31 Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
37 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them ; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.
41 I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.




12/10/2013 6:06 pm  #8

Re: Dogmata

Someone please tell me that ain't a baby goat and some young bullock on that tarp. Is this an Old Testament burnt offering session?


12/14/2013 7:56 pm  #9

Re: Dogmata

"Mark my words, it was not and never will be easy to follow the commands of the Lord Jesus. IT MEANS DEATH. Death to our desires, death to our own way, death to our carnal thoughts of what is seemly or right in a given situation."

Jake Gardner
"The Claims of Jesus Christ" (on home page of website)

How does a 24-year-old Texas guy know "it was not and never will be easy" to follow Jesus? How does this young man know that it "means death"? How does he know?


12/27/2013 2:04 pm  #10

Re: Dogmata


But, remember, if you refuse to hear reproof or be reasonable according to the word of God, you are sealing your own death warrant!
                          --Ryan Ringnald 

Preoccupation with themes of death.

“…God is angry with the wicked every day. If he [the sinner] turn not, He will whet His sword; He hath bent His bow, and made it ready. He hath prepared for him the instruments of death; He ordaineth His arrows against the persecutors” (Psalm 7:11-13).
                           --Ryan Ringnald

"What will God do? God has already bent His bow! He has already prepared the instruments of death!"
                           --Ryan Ringnald

"January 1st is another time of great provocation to God because of New Year’s celebrations. A religious reveling that is blasphemy, followed by a false sense of liberty, new years promises, and hopes of a prosperous next year – for this to be the time that their death sentence is executed is a clear message from God."
                           --Ryan Ringnald

“Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.” (Pro.15:10)
                           --Ryan Ringnald

What does this constant reference to death mean?

God's angry. He's comin'. God's going to kill you.


Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

©2012-2018 all rights reserved.

This is a conversation, an open dialogue, in the tradition of Free Speech. The purpose is to promote independent investigation, public debate and dialogue on cult and mind control issues critical to our social and individual well-being. Statements made reflect the writer's opinion. This forum acts to provide a space for electronic medium of information transfer, with the explicit understanding that each user will independently evaluate it and carefully make up his or her own mind as to its factual accuracy and usefulness. Independent individuals, organizations, authors, researchers, academicians and contributors may be exercising constitutional rights of petition, free speech, participation in government, or freedom of religion in researching, evaluating and freely discussing any matter. These discussions or statements may be constitutionally-protected opinions, speculation, allegations, satire, fiction, or religious beliefs or religious opinions of independent individuals, organizations or authors and as such, may or may not be factual.