Re: many faslehoods by Cornerstone, Kang -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:05:18 07/16/04 Fri
Author: Jim St. L.
Subject: Re: many faslehoods by Cornerstone, Kang
In reply to: Roving Reporter News Network 's message, "many faslehoods by Cornerstone, Kang" on 10:04:24 07/15/04 Thu

>Thanks for your comment, ubfSoul. We are glad that
>you went the extra mile to obtain a copy of the
>article. However, do not place confidence in phony
>reporting services like Cornerstone. You can see more
>of Mr. Trott here at
>
>http://www.cornerstonemag.com/jt/
>
>Yes, Trott is the guy with the all the piercings on
>his face. And if you read his articles you can see
>that he is fascinated with Satan and demons and is not
>bashful about saying so.
>
>You may also want to know a little more about Kang
>personally. Back in the day at UBF, Kang was treated
>as a superstar for a short time. Even people like Ban
>Toh would go around writing about Kang and her article
>in his reports, but no UBFer would ever dare to show
>anyone a copy of the Cornerstone article. No copy of
>this article was ever circulated at UBF, because even
>a UBFer would have a hard time to deny how slanted the
>article is. After awhile Kang was no longer held up
>as a superstar. She is presently a nobody in Chicago
>UBF.
>
>Also, we are sure that Kang's former shepherdess is
>very manipulative and abusive. Kang herself proved to
>be a master manipulator by trying to lure a former
>recruit (Sandra Brower) back to UBF. Sandra and her
>husband Bill wanted to leave the UBF together in 1999.
> Sandra was being severely, verbally abused by Doctor
>Helen Rarick on a daily basis. Sandra could not take
>it any more, and asked Bill if they could leave.
>Bill, a very decent and kind man, felt he should go
>and say 'Bye' to Jim Rarick, his recruiting shepherd,
>who Bill believed was his friend.
>
>But when Bill went to say 'Bye, he set off a dangerous
>reaction from the Chicago UBF leaders, who are
>sadistic and ungodly, and tried to stop the Browers
>from leaving. (They never reproached Doctor Helen
>Rarick for her abusive behavior. Docotr Rarick is a
>no-sheep shepherdess for many years due to her abusive
>behavior) Chicago UBF leaders went as far as to try
>to get Bill to divorce Sandra, though they already had
>two little kids. Jim Rarick in Chicago went as far as
>to tell Bill that if he would divorce Sandra, they
>would get him 'a better wife.' The Browers barely
>escaped UBF before the UBF could totally destroy their
>family.
>
>This innocent family, the near victim of UBF arranged
>divorce, left to live their life in peace and quiet.
>After a year or so of recovering from the UBF
>experience for this inoocent family, Annie Kang
>decided to try to recruit them back to UBF as her
>sheep. Kang deceived Sandra's mother into giving her
>Sandra's new phone number. Kang pretended to be
>Sandra's old friend, and met her several times, alone.
> Then Kang turned their 'friendly meetings' into a
>pseudo UBF one to one Bible study! Kang also gave the
>contact information to Jim Rarick, who contacted Bill,
>pretending to be his good friend. Bill rejected
>Rarick's effort completely. Still, Sandra could not
>shake off Kang so easily. A friend suggested that
>Sandra ask Kang to explain the deprogramming and the
>Cornerstone article. At the next meeting, Sandra
>brought up these issues to Kang. Kang refused to
>provide any explanations at all. And then Kang
>immediatley stopped all contact.
>
>Another bad sign that this Cornerstone article is
>false is it tries to portray the American exit
>counselors as deprogrammers and even kidnappers. If
>you read the article carefully, you will see it was
>Kang's own Korean family members who orchestrated the
>whole event. Her family decieved her and accosted to
>her to the remote farmhouse. Kang's family who held
>her there involuntarily. Her grandfather was the
>brains of the whole operation. Somehow Mr. Kang was
>able to use government resources to find out alot of
>scandolous background information about Ee Chang Woo,
>aka Samuel Lee, but the grandfather would not share
>this with the Americans. But Kang and Cornerstone try
>to shift the blame to Americans who were simply asked
>to provide her with the information about UBF and
>Samuel Lee's massive deceptions. Maybe Kang's family
>used deception because Annie is so deceptive?
>
>After Kang left the abduction, she obtained
>restraining orders basically against her whole family.
> When Kang rejected the family effort to get her out
>of the UBF, the granfather went back to Korea
>devastated.
>
>Also, in the article, Kang lied by saying that there
>is no such thing as arranged marriage in ubf. Why did
>she not just come out and say that all ubf marriages
>are arranged, but that she has the right to
>particicpate in arranged marriage? Why is yet another
>UBF member lying to the whole world about their
>Moon-like marriage process?
>
>The article as a whole is totally slanted. Mr. Trott
>is not a disinterested person writing from an
>objective viewpoint. Annie Kang is not a truthful
>person who describes events accurately. If anything,
>the article preserves for posterity the UBF heritage
>of arranged marriage, destruction of families, and the
>most sophisticated forms of lying and deception.

Thanks for the insightful article from the Roving Reporter News Network. Last year I also obtained an article from the North Park University library, since the article could not be located on the web. I also did a little research to see if what was said in the aforementioned article was true. (Probably more than cult and Satanic sympathizer co-author, Jon Trott.) Jon Trott was clearly out to write a slanted article because his group, JPUSA, has many similarities to UBF. I called both John Wick and Tim Brauns to get their reactions to this article. Both of them did not even know this article existed. But they both also remembered Mr. Jon Trott calling them. They said he was very confrontational and only interested in writing an article to fit his agenda. This is completely evident when you read the interview with John Wick. Tim Brauns was so upset with Mr. Trott he said, "Print whatever you want. I went to talk to her. And that's all I'm going to say about that." After talking to Tim Brauns he said that Mr. Stott was framing everything from a deprogrammer angle even though Tim Brauns was not brought in as a deprogrammer but came as a reverend, counselor and formerly abused member of UBF. Tim Brauns did not want to talk him because he knew Jon Stott was out to distort anything he said. Donna Adams and John Wick were also brought in as counselors and former members of UBF. All these people were brought in by Annie's grandfather who had gobs of bad information about Samuel Lee's past tax evasion and money laundering in Korea and the USA.

In the article Annie lies in several critical parts of this article. In the first place, she lies and omits information about "marriage by faith." She says, "In Korea, unlike America, it is very common to be introduced to a possible candidate for marriage. My uncles and aunts were all introduced that way. But it's still, of course, up to the two people to decide whether they like each other, whether they want to get married and establish a family..." Annie ignores the fact that in UBF "marriages by faith" the parents are completely left out of the decision making process for marriage, unlike her culture and the Biblical example of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis. Moreover, they purposely make every effort to emasculate the parents from their parental duties. For the most part, they don�t want their parents involved in any part of the marriage planning. As if to say, we know and love your own children more than you do. On top of that, recently they have asked their parents to come up with several thousand dollars to get married in the UBF church to line the pockets of the head UBF person. Furthermore, the first time the parents even meet the spouses of their children is either at the wedding or after it. In my case it was after my marriage for my father.

She also lies inside the same sentence when she says, "I don't know what UBF was like before I came, but since I've been involved I've seen people introduced to up to six different candidates and say no to all of them." How could she know that somebody rejected six different marriage partners, yet not know what happened before she came to Chicago? I never heard of anybody being introduced up to 6 marriage candidates. In Chicago UBF, they usually propose one or two fake candidates. Then once somebody rejects their real proposed partner, they are put on a kind of indefinite probation. Usually the peer pressure by their shepherds and fellowship members are so intense that the couple caves in and gets married in short order. I�ve seen so many people get married in UBF who barely knew each other and are completely incompatible. They are not even allowed to court or date their future spouse. Even after people are married in UBF personal and sexual relationships between spouses is discouraged and the shepherd tries to be the third person in the marriage. These are the reasons there are so many divorces and dysfunctional families in UBF.

At another point in the article Annie says about Tim Brauns, �He said he was a former member of UBF, and though he confessed he had nothing against the doctrine of UBF, he did not like some of the church leaders�� This is also a complete lie. Tim Brauns told me that most of his account in the books, �Churches That Abuse,� and �Scripture Twisting� are about the unbiblical and extrabiblical things that he saw and occurred to him while in UBF. To add to the confusion about the ex-UBF people she says the opposite about John Wick. About John Wick she says, �He�d been in UBF, and said that he had no bad feelings toward Dr. Samuel Lee but that UBF was not a good church.� The first part of this statement is completely untrue. First of all, John Wick has related to me several times how Samuel Lee messed Americans� minds up by flouting different marriage partners, then retracting them and telling that they had severe marriage problems. He even used this trick on Americans with his own daughter, Little Sarah. Also, John Wick would have never called him, �Dr. Samuel Lee,� because this was a fake title Samuel Lee bought several years after John Wick left UBF. John Wick would say UBF is not only not a good church but also one that can reap incredible damage on young people�s lives. (John Wick is currently the COO of Wellspring Retreat Center in Albany, OH.) Annie and Jon Stott use these two different comparative accounts of UBF by former UBF members to infer that all the former UBF people are confused why they left and they don�t have and consistent arguments against UBF. The opposite is really the case.

Her doubletalk is prevalent throughout this article. In the beginning of the article she clearly states how her brothers kidnapped her. But at the end of the article she squarely puts the blame on the �American deprogrammers,� for being abducted and her dysfunctional relationship with her own family members. She says, �I feel those involved in deprogrammings such as mine use violence; they force you into confinement and proceed to accuse Bible-believing churches of actually being dangerous cults that infringe on individual rights� Not one time did Brauns, Chrnalogar, or Wick pray with me�I believe the deprogrammers� activity damages the victim, but the victim�s family as well. I feel the deprogrammers and their supporters took advantage of my parents, who were vulnerable and concerned for their daughter�� Never at any point in the article does she say that her bad relationships with her family members were brought on by herself or by allowing herself to be controlled by UBFin�s. She never considers the facts that if she is a Christian she needs to honor her parents. Instead, she slaps her family members with restraining orders though they are several states apart. Furthermore, if her family members are not Christians, as she implies, isn�t she supposed to testify to them about Jesus Christ through her life and words? Instead, she wants people to believe that she and her family were completely victimized by money hungry evil �deprogrammers.� She even uses the UBF trick to take some Bible verses out of context to justify her own problems. This article seems to be too �Annie Kang� centered instead of Christ centered. Even though her own account cannot be verified by anybody, she consistently lies and misrepresents throughout the article. I suggest the next time Mr. Jon Stott interviews anybody from UBF he should have them wired and strapped up to a lie detector.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: many faslehoods by Cornerstone, Kang -- Chris, 01:54:51 07/16/04 Fri
Re: many falsehoods by Cornerstone, Kang -- Joe, 09:39:20 07/16/04 Fri
Re: many faslehoods by Cornerstone, Kang -- Nick T., 11:59:10 07/16/04 Fri