Tag Archives: Jane Whaley

Behavior Control, Books, Resources, Criteria for Cults, Uncategorized

What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (3)

2 Comments

   This is the next post in the series on “framing”. Our source text, which is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. is found here.. http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html . In the previous post, we covered the definition of “framing” written by the author: “A frame is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment.” We covered several aspects of how this influence tool is used at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). My opinion is that this framing tool is compounded with fear to actual form a “fear-frame” that explodes on its hearers with such power to freeze the listener and hinder rational decisions. Jane Whaley has constructed a total control environment for the WOFF faithful. This control is exercised many times with the use of such “fear-frames” as we have explained in the previous post.

    This post will review the hideous evil behind that use of such “fear-frames”. Rhoads continues to explain the use of frames in the source text. He begins be citing work from another study. “Kahneman & Tversky (1979) were interested in understanding the conditions under which people made conservative or risky judgments. They observed evidence supporting what they called “prospect theory:” that the prospect of a loss has a greater impact on decision making than does the prospect of an equivalent gain.” (Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometirca 4, 362-377; Econometrica 47, 263-291. emphasis added)  He covers the findings of this study as they measure a person’s gains against their losses. The study found that “The pleasure of winning money is less intense than the pain of losing the same sum!” It is not practical to repeat word for word the information Rhoads gives to support this study. I recommend you use the link provided and read it for yourself.

    Here is a synopsis of what I took away from the reading. “Again, we humans hate to lose. We’d rather not win, than lose!” (Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 160-173. Emphasis added) And Rhoads writes in summary.. “We know that a human’s first priority is not to lose–gains are secondary to the “no loss” rule. Thus, framing a decision in terms of possible loss should motivate a person more than framing the same decision in terms of possible gain. And, given various obligatory caveats and constraints which we explore later, subsequent research largely supports the contention that humans are acutely loss-averse and thus extraordinarily sensitive to loss frames.” (emphasis added)

   Continue reading What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (3) →

Books, Resources, Uncategorized

What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (2)

Leave a comment

   This is the second post in a series on the subject of “framing” – what it is and how it is used at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). We mentioned in the last post that the source material for this subject was found on a website here… http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html which is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. He explains several aspects of his studies dealing with the subject of influence. In the previous post, we reviewed some information about “framing” types and effects.

     At the end of the previous post we finished with these words: next, “we will look at the parts of a “frame”. I will also share my observations on the continual use of fear to frame every decision and rule during my time at WOFF. We will discuss a new term – “fear-frame” as well as how this affected life at WOFF. Please, check back soon for the next post. I believe this “fear-frame” concept is vital to understanding life for members of WOFF.”

   From the source material we read the author’s definition of a frame: “A frame is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment.”  Rhoads breaks down the definition to help understand the meaning: “1) A frame “offers a perspective.” It manages the viewer’s alignment in relation to the issue.” The theme used by the author to help his readers understand his definition was the use of actual frames, for instance around a picture. He uses this analogy several times very effectively. The “perspective” at WOFF was narrow to say the least. You agreed with Jane’s perspective or you did not stay around long. The starting position for a faithful member of WOFF was/is Jane was/is always right and all others are listening to devils. The mantra is not that evident at first. New folks are given room to “grow” and “come into their place” of “understanding”. The phrases used to direct a member to Jane’s counsel or one of the approved leaders may be gentle or innocuous at first.. Have you heard God on that? Are you sure? Are you under authority? Have you inquired of God? Have you submitted to authority in that area? Are you out from under authority? After a while, the code becomes clearer. Jane Whaley is the “authority” and all decisions flow through her. If it is evident that a new person is not getting the meaning of the WOFF code, the directives will be more obvious. Have you asked Jane? Have you checked that out with Jane? Does Jane know about that? Did Jane say that was God (God’s will)? It was clear that perspective you needed to stay in WOFF- was Jane’s.

   Continue reading What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (2) →

Behavior Control, Books, Resources, Criteria for Cults, Thought Reform, Uncategorized

What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (1)

Leave a comment

    A few weeks ago while researching something totally different about the effects of cults; I came across the website mentioned in the previous post. The website found here… http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. He explains several aspects of his studies dealing with the subject of influence. In the previous post, we reviewed some information about “The Hot Seat Technique”; Rhoads wrote that this method was one of the more common influence tools used by cult leaders. We also reviewed how I experienced that technique at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). It appears that this technique was/is used frequently by Jane Whaley and her leaders.  

    In this post, we will review information from the same website, but on a different technique of influence. While introducing the subject of “framing”, Rhoads pointed out that this is just one of many influence methods and actually it “has only been lightly researched.” My interest has been peaked and for now, we will review the information presented and compare it to my experience during my years at WOFF. While we review this information on “framing”, we will also seek to answer the question “Is framing used at WOFF?” and if so, how and why and what results are seen? In general, is it a good thing when used there or is it a bad thing? These questions will not be answered in one post. There are several planned in order to give us a better idea about “framing” and life inside of WOFF.

     There are two more concepts that we will consider in these posts in addition to “framing”. On this blog, there has been much posted about thought reform and how that worked at WOFF. One part of thought reform is the mystical manipulation as explained by Robert Lifton in his work “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton (original copyright 1961, later published again in 1989, ISBN 0-8078-4253-2 [alk. Paper]). You will find our introduction to this subject here.. https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=3238 .

   Here is an excerpt from that post:

  Continue reading What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (1) →

Behavior Control, Books, Resources, Uncategorized

Have You Ever Been in a “Truth Circle”?

Leave a comment

   A useful new habit of mine is to review the bibliography and/or the source list for an article, book or website that I am reading and/or studying. That practice led me to a website which discussed one of the influence tactics used by “cults”. The author of the site used information from sources we have used here in previous posts. Since the meanings or definitions vary when people mention the word “cults”, the author takes time to state what a cult is and how to determine the difference between a cult and a benign group that may employ techniques similar to other cult groups. The site is found here:  http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html  – the material is written by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D.

    As a normal response, while reading material like this, I take time to compare it with my experience and note similarities or differences. As many readers are aware, I spent 16 years being directly and/or indirectly influenced by the teachings, practices and commands of Jane Whaley- leader of Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). Several former members and knowledgeable cult experts classify WOFF as a religious cult. After I left and began to ponder my life inside the group, I came to the same conclusion. That conclusion stands not as a tool meant to harm or offend, but as a result of reviewing what I witnessed and experienced inside WOFF and making comparisons to known traits of other groups which are classified as religious cults.

   When answering the question about distinguishing a safe group from one that is not safe; the author of the site quotes from Dr. Margret Singer’s work in 1995- (Singer, M. T. & Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) “There are lots of differences, but the major difference is that of ultimate goal. Established religions and altruistic movements are focused outward–they attempt to better the lives of members and often, nonmembers. They make altruistic contributions. Cults serve their own purposes, which are the purposes of the cult leader; their energies are focused inward rather than outward.”  We have shared about the focus of WOFF in previous posts. There is a nominal effort to better the lives of those outside the group; but in my opinion, the minor efforts were/are tainted with the constant search for new members or relations (friends) that could make a contribution to the group – financially, politically, and/or somehow enhance the WOFF image and Jane’s power/influence in the community.  

   Continue reading Have You Ever Been in a “Truth Circle”? →

Behavior Control, Books, Resources, Criteria for Cults, Uncategorized

The Simple Truth is….

2 Comments

     A few weeks ago, I was talking to a couple in the church I attend. They came out of a cult after many years. The husband was in for about 30 years and he has commented before on this blog. The wife was in about 26 years. Both are very understanding when I mention my concerns and questions. We were talking and the wife began to explain her views. She took her two hands and designated one as “truth” and one as “error”. She then interlocked her fingers as she asked the question, “When you mix “truth” with “error”, what do you have?” The answer of course is – error. That analogy made a big impression on me. It helped give answers to several questions I had about why folks who live in and around Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) folks still can be confused as to the soundness/healthiness of the group. Let me explain my understanding.

    A resource I recently acquired has helped me through these questions, also. It is “Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements” by H. Wayne House. (Copyright ©2000 by H. Wayne House, published by Zondervan, ISBN -10: 0-310-38551-2). It explains some brief background as well as doctrinal positions of several groups/sects that have been labeled as sects, or controlling or cultic. The brief history and background information I find extremely fascinating. Some of the groups mentioned are Alamo Christian Ministries, The Family/ Children of God, Freemasonry, Jehovah Witnesses and Unification Church, as well as many others. The copyright is 2000; so, some information is dated and needs to be checked out with current sources. However, the history would not change. The layout gives the groups position and if that position is orthodox or error.  It shocked me how many groups actually held orthodox positions on certain basic Christian positions or practices or doctrines. Then a light went on. This is the draw for many folks. First, there is general ignorance as to the true orthodox position. These folks are easy prey for abnormal groups. (ask me, I know…) Then there are folks who excuse an alternate position or practice and accept the orthodox or tried and true positions to compensate and make up for a doubtful area. Then there are those that are so caught up in the main thrust of a group- they could care less about doctrine. If their needs are met, then the practices and extremes can be overlooked. If there is an appearance of “gospel work” like helping the poor or visiting the sick or prisoners, then other doctrines or even unorthodox practices are accepted as part of the package.

    Continue reading The Simple Truth is…. →

Criteria for Cults, Uncategorized

Reader Explains the Term “Love-thief”

2 Comments

     Previously, I wrote a post titled: Adulation- the Drug of Choice. (link here-https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=3843 ) It has spawned several comments. One reader wrote the following:   Great article! By substituting group names and leaders’ names we see this fits our experiences to a “T”. As for the “Why did we stay and do what we did?” question, the answer is simple: LOVE – We love(d) God and thought loving them was equal to serving God. They used our love against us for their own self-profiting reasons. It is a difficult reality to face having been used; but once we accept this fact it helps clear things up with respect to motives (theirs and ours) and actions (theirs and ours). Like any other user, a love-thief mimics the phraseology of the victims stating: “I love you.” knowing the victims will interpret that statement as meaning what it does when they say “I love YOU.” –unconditional love. But truly the love-thief only means “I love what you DO for me.” The true test of the love-thief’s statement comes when you stop performing to their standards or stop supplying their “fix”. Typically the love-thief will upbraid, ridicule, or ostracize you, proving they did not in fact “love” YOU; they only loved what you DID for them. At least, that’s what we think…  Don and Ange

     Many times over the last year, the material for a certain post has caught my attention and grabbed my interest more than normal. This comment prompted one of those experiences. The reader’s comment was an attempt to explain why members of cults could be involved with destructive groups. The concept of Love and its misuse and abuse is not new. Certainly the abuse of Love is as old as man himself. However, the explanation within the group setting as explained by Don T. helped me and sent my thoughts off into a direction that help me understand myself and my reasons for continuing even when there were doubts. I not only believed I loved the leaders, I loved my family and did not want to lose them, as was predicted by BC.

      Love– is such a rich word that has many underlying concepts. It is easy to understand how its meaning in a given relationship could be misapplied or misused. The purposeful misuse for personal gain is VERY plausible and evident in reference to the relationship of controlling group leader to members; as well as in the case of WOFF and other groups like WOFF. The term implies that the abuser steals “Love”. That is true. What else is stolen in this perverted relationship? I suggest that more than love is stolen. Time, energy, finances, in essence, the very life of a member is stolen in a group like WOFF. At some point, in the evolution of a love-thief, the leader can morph into a “life-thief”. There is a point where the very lives are stolen from the members of a group such as WOFF and NTCC and/or others in that vein. 

   Continue reading Reader Explains the Term “Love-thief” →

Behavior Control, Books, Resources, Criteria for Cults, Uncategorized

Adulation- the Drug of Choice

5 Comments

     During this season of my recovery from cult involvement, I am in the middle of reading several books. Today, I just opened the cover of another book that will be different from any I am reading or have read. “The Mother of God” by Luna Tarlo is “A mother’s account of her experience as a disciple of her own son, a well-known American guru, and of her struggle to free herself from his control.” (copyright © 1997 by Luna Tarlo, Plover Press) Such an inviting topic!

    Within the first few pages of this book is this quote from yet another book that I will read this year. “Adulation… has an addictive quality difficult to resist. Being the focus of such attention would activate the excitation levels of any sentient being on the receiving end of it. Whether for a guru or a rock star, this can be a more powerful experience than the strongest drug. It is also one of the greatest seductions of power.” This is from The Guru Papers– Masks of Authoritarian Power – by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad.

    Understandably, after several years being under the teachings of Jane Whaley at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) in Spindale, NC, I get caught up in the who said, who did, why did they, why did I, we should have, we could have – stage of sorting out the whole mess of WOFF and its goings, doings, sayings, and culture. Many hours I have spent replaying the events, writing about the events and talking about the events of those years. There are times when the question of why seems so large and then an even larger question- What will bring changes? As mentioned before, there are more questions than answers at this point.

   Continue reading Adulation- the Drug of Choice →