As I took the 30 Lessons Bible study, I was captivated by the idea that the true, authentic message of Jesus was discovered by Jung, rescued from the clutches of the mainstream evangelical "get everyone saved and throw tracts at them if you have to" church. I still feel Providence has a lot right that much of the Christian church doesn't, and back then I sensed this, and this drew me to Jung and his teachings.
But slowly the shiny veneer of these angels who taught me the Bible study peeled back, and a lifestyle revealed itself that I believe has several self-deceiving aspects. Today I'm focusing on the insistence in Providence that you smile whenever you're around people. In the group I was involved with, they advocated a big toothy grin, and that you do it often to present yourself well and attract people to the new truth.
After I left Providence, I continued having conversations with a member of the group. In one conversation, I asked him if life was hard. He paused for a moment, then finally shrugged and said "not really." For him, life was easy and without problems as long as you have the right mentality. It's all about the mentality, so to ever be unhappy, stressed, sad, depressed, etc. is a breakdown of our mentality and a failure to live in harmony with the new history. With the new truth, we should be happy and full of peace all the time.
I personally believe this is simply not reality. In reality, there is death, pain, hurt feelings, rejection, tragedy, lost opportunities, separation, hunger, torture, etc. To be able to read this blog, to have an Internet connection and food to eat, means we are quite blessed. But no matter how prosperous we are or how many friends keep us company, there is always something lacking. Maybe the person of our dreams turned us down. Maybe we lost our job and don't know how we'll pay the bills or feed our family. Maybe our spouse or child died. Such experiences can bring the human soul to its lowest depths. It's unreal to expect human beings to be perpetually happy and smile their faces off when we go through the difficulties of life.
I like it when people are real, when they are honest with how they feel. There's something beautiful and authentic in that. It gives us freedom when we realize we don't have to be happy all the time, that we're not being ungrateful, whether we're in Providence or Christianity or no religion at all. And this gets to one of the core problems, in my mind, of Providence. Jung presents a beautiful picture of how life works, but it's not how life really works, and it eats you up inside. According to him, the new history has arrived, and with the right mentality you can transcend the problems of this world, become perfect or near-perfect, and live in perpetual bliss. Maybe you feel this is possible once you make yourself well enough through great effort, but I don't believe that's how life works. No matter how much character you have, how noble your thoughts and how much integrity you have, life can really suck and it's okay to cry and be sad when circumstances really get you down. You don't have to pretend everything is okay when you're around other people.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Reflections 6 Months Later
I started this blog six months ago, very excited about Jung Myung-Seok's rape conviction. I remember when I was looking for answers, I went to jmscult.com, and through the forums I found a compelling case that Jung is not the Messiah and that Providence, for whatever reasons and convictions they hold, keeps information hidden from members they feel are not ready to receive it yet. Although the site helped, I felt it would have greatly helped to have strong apologetics that breaks down and refutes all of Providence doctrine point-by-point through careful study of the Scriptures. When I faced my former 30 Lessons teacher to discuss with him my intentions to leave Providence, I had to gut out some tough questions he asked me, with not much to say on my part at the time.
Realizing that with the rape conviction, several Providence members may be more open to looking at outside sources for the truth, I made this blog to fill the need I had when I was searching for answers, and that others would now have.
This blog has been inactive since last August. I haven't forgotten about it, but I've been busy, and to be honest, moved on from Providence and lost the urge to continue my efforts. I still check jmscult.com's forums every now and then for updates on Providence. Recently, Jung's sentence was upgraded to 10 years, and one of American Providence's leaders, Ralph, has made a surprising move in reaching out to the "anti-Providence" community and admitting mistakes on Providence's part, even admitting the existence of the Lover's Principle (atonement for sins through sex with Jung).
I feel it's time I posted some sort of update to this blog in case anyone actually reads it or ever does. People ultimately do not choose to follow a certain way because of an intellectual argument. Providence's most powerful argument (and what worked on me) is to "look at our members to see the truth of this." They are good people, and they have great community. They accept you and tell you that you are great, that you can make yourself into an amazing person with God's help and change the world. They have something that we all want in our lives.
You're not going to convince someone in that context that they are following someone who has deceived them for his own good when you use an intellectual argument. So I question whether my initial approach was the best way to reach out to the Providence community. I doubt that remarks like "deceptive and dangerous cult" and "smaller, second-rate derivative of the Unification Church" will lead to communication and openness with Providence members.
So I apologize if I offended anyone in Providence with my tone in the previous posts of this blog. I want to reach out to you with an open mind and a desire to understand your way of seeing things. I don't pretend I know everything, or that Christians have everything figured out. We're trying to figure out the truth in this messy world, just like everyone else.
I'll leave the previous posts up, as they have information that hopefully is of some help to somebody who may read it someday. I might do more analysis on Providence doctrine in the future, with a more respectful attitude. Ultimately, I hope that someday all the facts will be accessible to everyone, and that both sides can have honest and respectful discussion with each other.
Realizing that with the rape conviction, several Providence members may be more open to looking at outside sources for the truth, I made this blog to fill the need I had when I was searching for answers, and that others would now have.
This blog has been inactive since last August. I haven't forgotten about it, but I've been busy, and to be honest, moved on from Providence and lost the urge to continue my efforts. I still check jmscult.com's forums every now and then for updates on Providence. Recently, Jung's sentence was upgraded to 10 years, and one of American Providence's leaders, Ralph, has made a surprising move in reaching out to the "anti-Providence" community and admitting mistakes on Providence's part, even admitting the existence of the Lover's Principle (atonement for sins through sex with Jung).
I feel it's time I posted some sort of update to this blog in case anyone actually reads it or ever does. People ultimately do not choose to follow a certain way because of an intellectual argument. Providence's most powerful argument (and what worked on me) is to "look at our members to see the truth of this." They are good people, and they have great community. They accept you and tell you that you are great, that you can make yourself into an amazing person with God's help and change the world. They have something that we all want in our lives.
You're not going to convince someone in that context that they are following someone who has deceived them for his own good when you use an intellectual argument. So I question whether my initial approach was the best way to reach out to the Providence community. I doubt that remarks like "deceptive and dangerous cult" and "smaller, second-rate derivative of the Unification Church" will lead to communication and openness with Providence members.
So I apologize if I offended anyone in Providence with my tone in the previous posts of this blog. I want to reach out to you with an open mind and a desire to understand your way of seeing things. I don't pretend I know everything, or that Christians have everything figured out. We're trying to figure out the truth in this messy world, just like everyone else.
I'll leave the previous posts up, as they have information that hopefully is of some help to somebody who may read it someday. I might do more analysis on Providence doctrine in the future, with a more respectful attitude. Ultimately, I hope that someday all the facts will be accessible to everyone, and that both sides can have honest and respectful discussion with each other.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Lesson 1: Peter and the Fish
The first of the 30 Lessons, "Peter and the Fish," is the first lesson usually taught to students, and here is where Providence teachers subtly establish the basis for Providence's method of allegorical interpretation, where certain biblical texts are reinterpreted as a metaphor of what happened, rather than the actual description of the event. Once this loose, flexible style of interpretation is accepted, all Providence doctrine can be supported by reinterpreting Scripture in their favor. Many cults that use the Bible employ a similar technique to support their teachings.
For the lesson, Providence uses the story of Jesus instructing Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth in order to pay their taxes:
Problems with this teaching:
Genre of the Gospel of Matthew
To establish a metaphorical view of Jesus' miracles, Providence teachers may point to obvious metaphors in parts of the Bible as support for misinterpretation of passages that are otherwise considered literal. Passages such as "You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth" (Ezekiel 39:18, NIV) and "my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches" (Job 29:19, NIV) are obviously not literal, and Providence teachers make a connection between those metaphors and Matthew 17:24-27.
However, books such as Ezekiel and Job are prophetic works and poetic dramas, where metaphors are used as vivid illustrations to powerfully convey their messages, such as God's hatred of sin or the depths of Job's agony. Matthew, on the other hand, is a historical narrative, like Exodus, Joshua, and I/II Kings, which gives a detailed historical account of actual events, containing mostly literal language. Although the books of the Bible contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical language to some extent, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 17:24-27, or in the passage itself, to hint at the catching of the fish delineating from literal narrative.
It's worth noting that when most people read this passage, they assume the catching of the fish with a coin in its mouth to be a literal miracle, whereas the earlier referenced passages in Ezekiel and Job are assumed to be metaphor. A person's reasoning mind makes the logical deduction that the Ezekiel and Job passages must be a metaphor, while the passage in Matthew must be a literal event.
Interpreting the Bible
As for discerning when a passage should be considered literal or metaphor, the proper interpretation should be arrived at by logical means, through reviewing factors such as the genre of the writing, the author's intent, the context of the passage, etc. When dealing with the Bible and other texts (and all language in general), a literal interpretation should be taken unless a figurative interpretation would be more logical and appropriate. This is the approach we generally use in real life to interpret conversations, figures of speech, novels, poetry, etc.
For example, if a young child were to say "I could eat a cow right now," a literal interpretation would not make much sense. We would recognize that this phrase is an illustration of the child's great hunger. "I am going to eat a medium-rare slice of steak with a fork" clearly makes sense and would be taken literally by the listener.
Author's intent
The author of the Gospel of Matthew is generally accepted to be Matthew the apostle. Why would he record the event in the form of a metaphor? No reader under normal circumstances would read that passage and understand the fish miracle as Peter finding a man to pay taxes for himself and Jesus in exchange for one-on-one time with Jesus.
As one of the twelve apostles, Matthew would know firsthand if the Providence interpretation was what really happened. If that's the case, why didn't he explain what actually happened after Jesus gave his metaphorical instructions? He would have known that the real meaning of the passage would be lost if he failed to describe it.
The details of the miracle
Perhaps a better case could be made for the fish miracle to be a metaphor if it were vague and brief, similar to other figures of speech in the Bible. However, we can see that Jesus' instructions to Peter are specific and rather detailed.
"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (Matthew 17:27, NIV)
Jesus tells Peter to "go to the lake," "throw out your line," "take the first fish you catch," "open its mouth" to find a coin, and "take it and give it to" the tax authorities. Nothing in these instructions would suggest to Peter that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Nothing in the context suggests that Peter went to a man to get money. Matthew explained nothing after the instructions of Jesus, inferring that Peter followed Jesus' directions to fish and that Jesus' words came to pass.
The Parable of the Net (Matthew 13:47-50)
In this passage alluded to in the lesson as support for the Providence view, Jesus gives a parable where fish are a metaphor for people. Notice how by reading the context of this passage, it is clear that Jesus is telling the disciples a series of parables, and it is clear that one should interpret this as a metaphor. In addition, Jesus is using this parable to teach, not to give a command as He does in Matthew 17:24-27.
Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to catch fish
See Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14
In neither of these examples does anyone, including those in Providence, believe that the fish referred to here represent people. What in the context of Matthew 17:24-27 suggests that instruction was any different?
Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to evangelize/teach
See Matthew 10:1-15, Luke 10:1-12, and Mark 16:14-18
In all of these examples where Jesus gives the actual instruction to evangelize and teach, Jesus gives explicit directions. Jesus' parables are used to teach, but His commands are given in literal language.
Other interesting notes
In Conclusion
There is no context in the passage which reasonably suggests that the fish of Matthew 17:24-27 is a man. The only explanation Providence can offer is that Jung received special revelation from God. Jung's teachings are only supported by his claim to be the messiah, and his claim to be the messiah is only supported by his teachings.
For More Information
Practical Hermeneutics: How to Interpret Your Bible Correctly
For the lesson, Providence uses the story of Jesus instructing Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth in order to pay their taxes:
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"What Providence teaches:
"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"
"From others," Peter answered.
"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him.
"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."
(Matthew 17:24-27, NIV)
- This event is metaphorical, not literal. When Jesus called Peter to be His disciple, He told him, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men" (Luke 5:10, NIV). Fish in this example is a metaphor for humans, correct? So when Jesus tells Peter to catch a fish, He is employing the same metaphor He used before.
- "Peter understood what J meant. It was so hard to meet J because there were always crowds around him. The first person that Peter 'caught' would naturally offer to pay the tax to meet J personally. Who wouldn't pay 4 drachmas to have personal time with J?" (30 Lessons)
- In Matthew 13:47-50, Jesus gives the Parable of the Net, another example where a fish is a metaphor for a person.
- "J spoke in this way because Peter was an ex-fisherman and fishing was the main economy in the region. Naturally, fishing terminology would be used to express all kinds of things; in this case, evangelism." (30 Lessons)
- The real miracle is saving a life by getting a man to hear the words of Jesus, far more important than catching a fish with money. If Jesus could really fill fish mouths with money, why wouldn't he do it more often and be rich so he wouldn't have to live as a poor man?
- Therefore, our belief should not be based on miracles, but rather on the words.
- Certain parts of the Bible, despite appearing to be a literal narrative, are actually metaphors of what really happened. This hidden truth can only be seen by the one that God chooses to reveal this truth to.
- Literal miracles are foolish to believe, which is the mistake that unthinking Christians make. The real miracle is in the words. Spiritual miracles are far more impressive and important.
- The messiah is not revealed by his miracles or power, but by what he teaches.
- All the physical miracles Jesus performed (healing people, walking on water, etc.) are metaphors of spiritual miracles (saving souls, teaching spiritual truth).
Problems with this teaching:
Genre of the Gospel of Matthew
To establish a metaphorical view of Jesus' miracles, Providence teachers may point to obvious metaphors in parts of the Bible as support for misinterpretation of passages that are otherwise considered literal. Passages such as "You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth" (Ezekiel 39:18, NIV) and "my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches" (Job 29:19, NIV) are obviously not literal, and Providence teachers make a connection between those metaphors and Matthew 17:24-27.
However, books such as Ezekiel and Job are prophetic works and poetic dramas, where metaphors are used as vivid illustrations to powerfully convey their messages, such as God's hatred of sin or the depths of Job's agony. Matthew, on the other hand, is a historical narrative, like Exodus, Joshua, and I/II Kings, which gives a detailed historical account of actual events, containing mostly literal language. Although the books of the Bible contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical language to some extent, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 17:24-27, or in the passage itself, to hint at the catching of the fish delineating from literal narrative.
It's worth noting that when most people read this passage, they assume the catching of the fish with a coin in its mouth to be a literal miracle, whereas the earlier referenced passages in Ezekiel and Job are assumed to be metaphor. A person's reasoning mind makes the logical deduction that the Ezekiel and Job passages must be a metaphor, while the passage in Matthew must be a literal event.
Interpreting the Bible
As for discerning when a passage should be considered literal or metaphor, the proper interpretation should be arrived at by logical means, through reviewing factors such as the genre of the writing, the author's intent, the context of the passage, etc. When dealing with the Bible and other texts (and all language in general), a literal interpretation should be taken unless a figurative interpretation would be more logical and appropriate. This is the approach we generally use in real life to interpret conversations, figures of speech, novels, poetry, etc.
For example, if a young child were to say "I could eat a cow right now," a literal interpretation would not make much sense. We would recognize that this phrase is an illustration of the child's great hunger. "I am going to eat a medium-rare slice of steak with a fork" clearly makes sense and would be taken literally by the listener.
Author's intent
The author of the Gospel of Matthew is generally accepted to be Matthew the apostle. Why would he record the event in the form of a metaphor? No reader under normal circumstances would read that passage and understand the fish miracle as Peter finding a man to pay taxes for himself and Jesus in exchange for one-on-one time with Jesus.
As one of the twelve apostles, Matthew would know firsthand if the Providence interpretation was what really happened. If that's the case, why didn't he explain what actually happened after Jesus gave his metaphorical instructions? He would have known that the real meaning of the passage would be lost if he failed to describe it.
The details of the miracle
Perhaps a better case could be made for the fish miracle to be a metaphor if it were vague and brief, similar to other figures of speech in the Bible. However, we can see that Jesus' instructions to Peter are specific and rather detailed.
"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (Matthew 17:27, NIV)
Jesus tells Peter to "go to the lake," "throw out your line," "take the first fish you catch," "open its mouth" to find a coin, and "take it and give it to" the tax authorities. Nothing in these instructions would suggest to Peter that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Nothing in the context suggests that Peter went to a man to get money. Matthew explained nothing after the instructions of Jesus, inferring that Peter followed Jesus' directions to fish and that Jesus' words came to pass.
The Parable of the Net (Matthew 13:47-50)
In this passage alluded to in the lesson as support for the Providence view, Jesus gives a parable where fish are a metaphor for people. Notice how by reading the context of this passage, it is clear that Jesus is telling the disciples a series of parables, and it is clear that one should interpret this as a metaphor. In addition, Jesus is using this parable to teach, not to give a command as He does in Matthew 17:24-27.
Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to catch fish
See Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14
In neither of these examples does anyone, including those in Providence, believe that the fish referred to here represent people. What in the context of Matthew 17:24-27 suggests that instruction was any different?
Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to evangelize/teach
See Matthew 10:1-15, Luke 10:1-12, and Mark 16:14-18
In all of these examples where Jesus gives the actual instruction to evangelize and teach, Jesus gives explicit directions. Jesus' parables are used to teach, but His commands are given in literal language.
Other interesting notes
- Fish in the Sea of Galilee do sometimes have coins in their mouth. So it's possible that God did not create a coin in the mouth of a fish. It is still a miracle in the sense that Peter catching a fish with a coin in its mouth with the correct denomination and amount is best explained by divine intervention.
In Conclusion
There is no context in the passage which reasonably suggests that the fish of Matthew 17:24-27 is a man. The only explanation Providence can offer is that Jung received special revelation from God. Jung's teachings are only supported by his claim to be the messiah, and his claim to be the messiah is only supported by his teachings.
For More Information
Practical Hermeneutics: How to Interpret Your Bible Correctly
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
About Providence
So what is Providence?
Providence, otherwise known as JMS or Setsuri, is an infamous South Korean cult with small followings in other countries, including the U.S. The leader of the group is Jeong Myeong-suk, also known as Joshua Jung, and "seong saeng nim" or "R" to his followers.
What makes them a dangerous cult?
Jung teaches that he is the new messiah, the Second Coming of Jesus. According to Jung, Christianity has gone astray, and in this new time period of Jung being the messiah, following him is now the path to salvation rather than atonement through Jesus Christ's death on the cross.
Jung's followers go around college campuses in the U.S., masquerading as Christians and asking students to do Bible study with them. Teaching Jung's "30 lessons," Providence teachers teach the Bible with warped interpretations. Factors common to cult indoctrination such as love bombing, ignorance of proper biblical interpretation, wanting to be part of a special elite group, etc., lead students to accept the teachings and join the cult.
Once inside, members are mentally abused, pushed to work hard to evangelize others and perfect themselves, regulated in what they can eat, and encouraged to detach from family and friends while spending much of their time with fellow Providence members. In addition, members have to wake up at 4 am every morning to listen to morning messages, recordings of Jung's teachings that serve to preserve the cult mentality of members, while impairing critical thinking skills due to a lack of sleep.
What are the 30 Lessons?
The 30 Lessons comprise the Bible study program which Providence teachers teach students. Based on Jung's teachings, these lessons reinterpret and skew foundational Christian doctrines. These lessons teach that Jesus is not God, Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, Jesus' death on the cross was not God's original plan, the Holy Trinity is actually "Father, Mother, and Son," John the Baptist was a failure who went to Hell, etc.
What is the Unification Church and its relation to Providence?
The Unification Church is a more well-known cult in America, which peaked around the 1970's. This cult is led by Sun Myung Moon, who also claims to be the messiah. Much of Providence's teachings are copied from or are a slightly modified version of the Unification Church's teachings, which started before Providence. To explain this problem, Providence teaches that Moon is the "John the Baptist" sidekick to Jung. Moon received the same teachings from God and was supposed to proclaim that Jung was the messiah, but he failed and instead set himself up as the messiah. Thus, Providence conveniently explains away the more reasonable conclusion that Providence is a smaller, second-rate derivative of the Unification Church.
So is this Jung guy a rapist?
Yes. On August 12, 2008, Joshua Jung was convicted of raping three of his female followers.
Isn't that good enough evidence? Why bother making a blog to refute such a small cult?
Because there are still many Americans and other English-speaking Providence members who may need more than Jung's rape conviction to be convinced that Providence is wrong.
Because while it is obviously wrong to someone outside of Providence, it is not so clear to those inside the bubble. The feeling and idea of being an elite spiritual person (one of the special few to receive the revelation of Jung's teachings), the idea of superiority over the "ignorant and spiritually weak" followers of Christianity, and the friendships and community within Providence entice many to stay despite the abuse and secrecy. Jung also teaches that those who leave Providence will be condemned to Hell, further complicating matters.
And those who leave still have to overcome the indoctrination, especially if they've been a member for years.
For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_(religion): Wikipedia article of Providence.
http://www.jmscult.com: Best English resource for information on Providence.
http://www.providencetrial.com: American Providence's website, offering a defense of Providence and Joshua Jung.
Providence, otherwise known as JMS or Setsuri, is an infamous South Korean cult with small followings in other countries, including the U.S. The leader of the group is Jeong Myeong-suk, also known as Joshua Jung, and "seong saeng nim" or "R" to his followers.
What makes them a dangerous cult?
Jung teaches that he is the new messiah, the Second Coming of Jesus. According to Jung, Christianity has gone astray, and in this new time period of Jung being the messiah, following him is now the path to salvation rather than atonement through Jesus Christ's death on the cross.
Jung's followers go around college campuses in the U.S., masquerading as Christians and asking students to do Bible study with them. Teaching Jung's "30 lessons," Providence teachers teach the Bible with warped interpretations. Factors common to cult indoctrination such as love bombing, ignorance of proper biblical interpretation, wanting to be part of a special elite group, etc., lead students to accept the teachings and join the cult.
Once inside, members are mentally abused, pushed to work hard to evangelize others and perfect themselves, regulated in what they can eat, and encouraged to detach from family and friends while spending much of their time with fellow Providence members. In addition, members have to wake up at 4 am every morning to listen to morning messages, recordings of Jung's teachings that serve to preserve the cult mentality of members, while impairing critical thinking skills due to a lack of sleep.
What are the 30 Lessons?
The 30 Lessons comprise the Bible study program which Providence teachers teach students. Based on Jung's teachings, these lessons reinterpret and skew foundational Christian doctrines. These lessons teach that Jesus is not God, Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, Jesus' death on the cross was not God's original plan, the Holy Trinity is actually "Father, Mother, and Son," John the Baptist was a failure who went to Hell, etc.
What is the Unification Church and its relation to Providence?
The Unification Church is a more well-known cult in America, which peaked around the 1970's. This cult is led by Sun Myung Moon, who also claims to be the messiah. Much of Providence's teachings are copied from or are a slightly modified version of the Unification Church's teachings, which started before Providence. To explain this problem, Providence teaches that Moon is the "John the Baptist" sidekick to Jung. Moon received the same teachings from God and was supposed to proclaim that Jung was the messiah, but he failed and instead set himself up as the messiah. Thus, Providence conveniently explains away the more reasonable conclusion that Providence is a smaller, second-rate derivative of the Unification Church.
So is this Jung guy a rapist?
Yes. On August 12, 2008, Joshua Jung was convicted of raping three of his female followers.
Isn't that good enough evidence? Why bother making a blog to refute such a small cult?
Because there are still many Americans and other English-speaking Providence members who may need more than Jung's rape conviction to be convinced that Providence is wrong.
Because while it is obviously wrong to someone outside of Providence, it is not so clear to those inside the bubble. The feeling and idea of being an elite spiritual person (one of the special few to receive the revelation of Jung's teachings), the idea of superiority over the "ignorant and spiritually weak" followers of Christianity, and the friendships and community within Providence entice many to stay despite the abuse and secrecy. Jung also teaches that those who leave Providence will be condemned to Hell, further complicating matters.
And those who leave still have to overcome the indoctrination, especially if they've been a member for years.
For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_(religion): Wikipedia article of Providence.
http://www.jmscult.com: Best English resource for information on Providence.
http://www.providencetrial.com: American Providence's website, offering a defense of Providence and Joshua Jung.
Intro
Hello, I am starting this blog to raise awareness of and refute the doctrines of a deceptive and dangerous cult which is infamous in South Korea, but hardly known in America and other countries as they convert unsuspecting college students under the radar. It is best known as JMS, which stands for Jesus Morning Star. In America, it's best known as Providence, and as Setsuri in Japan. Because it's mostly unknown in America, there are few resources available in English concerning this group.
With the cults leader's rape conviction today, a strong piece of evidence is now available against Providence. But even with the guilty verdict, the cult will probably continue operations of deceiving students on college campuses and adding whoever they can to their numbers. This blog is for students who are being taught the "30 Lessons" and want the other side of the story, members who are doubting the truth of Providence and want answers, ex-members who need help overcoming Providence doctrine, and for raising awareness of this cult and other cults roaming college campuses.
With the cults leader's rape conviction today, a strong piece of evidence is now available against Providence. But even with the guilty verdict, the cult will probably continue operations of deceiving students on college campuses and adding whoever they can to their numbers. This blog is for students who are being taught the "30 Lessons" and want the other side of the story, members who are doubting the truth of Providence and want answers, ex-members who need help overcoming Providence doctrine, and for raising awareness of this cult and other cults roaming college campuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
