WOFF Member Sues Clerk of Court (1)

   Though the suit was filed November 30, 2010, the local newspaper is just now reporting the story. The Digital Courier (www.thedigitalcourier.com) reports Ramona Hall is suing Robynn Spence, the Rutherford County Clerk of Court. Ms. Hall is alleging that she was not re-appointed due to her membership in Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF).  The suit also claims Laura Bridges was not re-appointed for the same reason. The claim is based on religious discrimination which violates State and Federal Laws.

   In the suit, WOFF is described as

“…Word of Faith Fellowship (“Word of Faith”), a Protestant, Non-Denominational church, whose members believe in powerful prayer in tongues and do not participate in the celebration of commercial holidays or the playing of secular music ….

     There is so much to comment about concerning this situation; I really do not know where to start. Let’s start with the description of WOFF. As a former member, I am not surprised at the self-description or that it would leave out some vital points. A more accurate description would include that fact that WOFF does not play ANY MUSIC not APPROVED by Jane Whaley. That INCLUDES, but is not limited to Christian music, hymns, and instrumentals of any type. (at least, while I was there.) Yes, I realize that what type of music NOT played is NOT the main point. The point of the description is to outline that for which WOFF feels like it has a right to do or believe and yet, others may not think so or agree with. As having been on both sides of the fence and having great respect for the laws that have allegedly been broken, let me state IT IS THE DEED- NOT THE CREED.  It is what is DONE inside of WOFF that I know violates human decency and good common manners. There are basic rights guaranteed by the same Constitution that Ramona claims was violated; which are denied the faithful WOFF members! In a former post, I have outlined the rights. Here is the first post of relevance in that series… http://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=2677

 

     The self-description would be more accurate if it included some other attributes such as communal living, constant fund-raising, verified mind control techniques to include but not limited to – information control, loaded language, demand for purity, mystical manipulation and the others documented by Robert Jay Lifton in his work “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. (copyright© 1961, ISBN 0-8078-4253-2) Yes, that would be asking too much.  

   The suit also claims “Woffer” is a derogatory term for members of the Word of Faith.” Come on, as used here, WOFFer is an abbreviation for WOFF member. Not sure if “Woffer” means anything different. I was obviously not the first to suggest the term.

     Ramona claims to have been denied her right to religion when in reality in order to stay in WOFF; she is denied her rights as a free US citizen EVERYDAY. A faithful WOFF member will accept the denial of MANY rights that others have died for them to keep. In order to please Jane and “fulfill the call of God” they are told that they must “submit to God” and in essence give up basic rights afforded others in this country. Does this sound equitable or fair when many in leadership DO NOT live under the same rules? Several in leadership are allowed “freedoms” because they “walk in a higher place in God” (Jane’s favor) than others.  Inside of WOFF, a member is not allowed free access to the very newspaper that Ramona sent a copy of the suit to in the first place!  Faithful (to Jane) WOFF members will not be allowed to view unhindered any television coverage of this suit! ANY information allowed to WOFF faithful will be filtered through Jane and her two main news filters- RF and JF. Yes, this first article was straight forward and showed Ramona in a good light. After the proceedings start, any other reporting will be filtered through Jane to the regular members. Negative will be spun into something neutral or positive to keep the regular members in the dark. How do I know? I “saw the light” when I left. We were not told the entire truth about many situations while inside of WOFF. (see post here about one obvious attempt to quash truth… http://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=2639 )  WOFF-life truly is like living in a vacuum- void of free choice, free will and free access to information. It is a religious twilight zone full of lost hopes, lost desires, emotional pain, and broken relationships with its own mind-binding language. It is the deed, not the creed. Jane can believe she is god, but when she requires and constrains others to live as if she was God by controlling them, that is when serious issues arise. There is more to the suit; however, we will have to take it up in another post.

    Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog.  Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.

    Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.

       (Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 236.

2 thoughts on “WOFF Member Sues Clerk of Court (1)”

  1. The term “Woffer” originally was “Woofer” or “Wolfer”and was coined by myself and another former WOFF member, JW (not Jane Whaley), in the early 90’s during a conversation together. It was coined in reference to the scripture about “Wolves in sheeps clothing,” which is more appropriate today than it was then. “Woof, Woof.” The term caught on among other former members and became what it is today. If it is a derogatory term, I do not apologize because if it looks like a sheep and acts like a wolf it is what it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.