This is the last post in the series on “framing” (as far as I know). 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 mentioned 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 have covered several aspects of how this influence tool is used at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). As stated in previous posts, 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 posts.

  Previously, we discussed studies that make it clear –“that a human’s first priority is not to lose–gains are secondary to the “no loss” rule.” Add the tendency to “not lose” with the “fear-frames” used by Jane Whaley at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) and it becomes clear that life at WOFF is not what a first impression might reveal. Jane uses “fear-frames” to build into her faithful fears of losing something near and dear such as family, jobs, houses, salvation, and prospect of missing heaven, friends and so on. In order to gain “fear-relief”, her faithful members go to Jane for “the word of the Lord”. Actually, that is a super-charged religious euphemism which actually means they are seeking relief from the fears of losing that “something” where Jane holds sway over them. As I agreed with another former member earlier this week, this whole scenario is hard to understand unless you have been inside WOFF or a group like WOFF where fear is the modus operandi of the leader. I am trying to break it down as best I know how. This forum does not allow me to cover all the material Rhoads covers on the subject. I suggest you take the time and read the series on his website.  

    Rhoads does offer some “Frame Defenses” which we will cover in this post. Rhoads writes, “How does one defend oneself against manipulative frames? A difficult question, to be sure. I believe most frames escape notice, because humans are generally too busy or distracted to realize an issue has been framed.”  He then goes on to list five techniques that will help reveal when a manipulative frame is being used. I will review these and add my thoughts as to their use against the “fear-frames” within WOFF. Even after reading this information, I do not pretend to have a full understanding of the “framing” subject or the defenses. Readers are welcome to comment and add their insights to help myself and others learn more.

    “1. Write the decision, with “vs.” between issues. Then ask: “Are these truly the issues, or have they shifted?” If so, reframe.” This one has been a little cloudy for me. Let’s reference a rule from WOFF and write it in this manner. Jane Whaley requires male members to wear blue or white shirts in the sanctuary for services, especially Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings. I have seen people sent home to change and/or get a better shirt so they could return to the service. How would this be written? Wearing blue/white shirts vs. being sent out of the service. The understanding for the WOFF faithful is that wearing the right clothes is important to “holy righteous living” and therefore important to God. The first outwardly noticeable thing that happens to a new member is they are dressed in acceptable “WOFF-dress”. Is this truly critical and vital to one’s salvation? Or is it just a Jane requirement? The Scripture used for justifying the WOFF rules on dress is Exodus 28:2-

 “And you shall make for Aaron your brother sacred garments [appointed official dress set apart for special holy services] for honor and for beauty.” (Amplified Bible)

   Does it really make sense to base a whole line of strict WOFF practices on one Scripture? Where is the New Testament reference to dressing “WOFF”? As I see it, these practices end up producing haughtiness and pride and not the humility that Jesus portrayed. It appears that the issue shifts from pleasing God to pleasing Jane. Is that accurate?

    Defense number 2- “If a decision seems to be a simple open-and-shut case, ask, “What other frames would be appropriate? Is this decision really this simple or is an existing frame making it seem so?” Okay, let’s try this one. It appears from my experience at WOFF and what I have learned since leaving, that to Jane and her faithful, it is an open and shut foregone conclusion that if you belong to WOFF – you have a Jane Whaley determined odds on–chance of making it to heaven. If you are not a faithful, tithing, obedient WOFF member, get ready for a one way ticket on the hell-slide. Is the question of eternal destination that simple or is the existing “fear-frame” of WOFF making it seem like that? “What other frames would be appropriate?”  Well, is it feasible that of all the millions and millions of confessing Christians in the world only those submitted to Jane Whaley will make it to heaven? That is even fewer than 144,000 as believed by some other groups.

    What is a way to frame such a question that makes more sense when you consider a loving God that may have an interest in folks who are not just followers of Jane Whaley in Spindale, NC? Could God have failed to the point that unless Jane approves of someone- they don’t get into heaven? Could God have turned over the judgment of sinner and saint to the one and only Jane Whaley? Does Jane Whaley “hear God” perfectly every time? If so, then WOW. If not, would it be just your lot that she would have an off day when your time came to be considered for heaven? What is a more prudent way to value WOFF membership? Would it be safe to say that WOFF membership means more to Jane and her followers than it ever could mean to God? Would it be safe to say that Jane’s thoughts on who will make it and who will not, count for nothing compared to the wisdom, love and compassion of God? Do folks other than WOFF members make it into eternal bliss – heaven? What about all the folks born before Jane was born? Do/did they have a chance to make it to heaven? If we consider the WOFF standard portrayed today- no, people born before Jane became aware of her awesome responsibility to approve heaven’s members- had/have no chance. What a bummer for them! So, do non-WOFF members make it to heaven? I would have to say from what we hope for – yes. Then why do WOFF members act differently? I know I acted the same way when I was among them. I must confess this is very sad and truly embarrassing.

   Defense number 3- “Remember that you are in charge of your frames. Ask yourself, “What’s important here?” and then act accordingly.”  Honestly, while I was a WOFF member, I had no idea that I was “in charge of the frames”. Once I was submerged in the WOFF-lake-of-fear, then considering I was in charge of anything seemed doubtful. Jane set the tone and subject of every public meeting, every private meeting and all else at WOFF. She was the frame-builder and for sure a fence-builder (of fear) – as mentioned previously. But, it is good to know that I am charge of the frames now. How can that message be given to present WOFF members? While awash in WOFFness, being is charge of anything is highly unlikely – to the faithful WOFF members. That is part of the definition of “faithful” as I see it. WOFF faithful give up, at least in their minds, the ability to know and determine – “What is important?” I know, now, in reality, I had the power all the time, but while inside it is clouded and covered with the fear which Jane uses. WOFF members do not determine what is important in their lives- Jane does. Once they try, their membership status is in doubt. So, part of getting free of the fear Jane uses is relearning that you have the right to determine what is important in your life! Yes, this is a good defense and now it is a good offense also!

   From Rhoads, defense number 4 – “If you encounter a situation in which a communicator stands to benefit from your compliance, ask: “What’s the agenda for the person presenting this information? Why is this particular aspect of the topic being made salient?” Be suspicious. Attempt to counter with alternate frames.” This defense is obvious now, but during WOFF days, Jane down played her agenda or benefits and claimed to be acting on God’s commands “to serve the people”. She always played off her benefits and small and her sacrifice as LARGE! Oh, my! Did she ever call her sacrifice – LARGE! We WOFF members were blamed for her physical illnesses and other such non-sense. She blamed WOFF members for loosing witchcraft at her! In reality, she CHOSE to do what she did/does and she deserves every consequence she received. But, when you are a faithful WOFF member, you do not see the benefits Jane received from us believing her mantras. She claimed to only make $600 a month. She claimed to be up all night praying for “God’s people”. (We were led to believe that was only- us!)  It was hard to piece together the lifestyle she lived and the total benefit package she received- why? Well, Jane hid a lot of it from the regular members. I know more now about this. Jane would not serve God for free, no matter what she says. She said at least one time, “God, if I have to live in a hut, I just want to serve you.” Why was I so slow in putting this all together? Did I assess her motives by her words and not her actions? That can cause a person much heartache.

    Rhoads ends on a note of caution with defense number 5 – Beware of anything that physically frames. Like a TV! … It’s a frame! Anything you see on TV has already been framed for you. The same goes for the web, radio, newspapers, and magazines, as well as pictures in museums! A frame isn’t necessarily bad, but keep in mind that it does require you view the situation from a certain perspective.  With this caution, I must add that when a person walks into a door- you are entering into a situation that has been framed. My reference is about specifically walking into the sanctuary of WOFF. All services are “framed” to a certain degree back in Jane’s office. She calls it “getting ahold of God for the direction of the service.” From what I saw, she carries the liberty to “go in a completely different direction” and claim God told her to do it… So, in reality what does that make Jane? She is the “master-framer” at WOFF. And in reference to defense number 5- Jane keeps her folks from reading newspapers, watching TV or listening to the radio, why? She does it because she cannot control the frames or content of the media when it is a live feed or when a regular member has unhindered access. She may have to “deal with someone’s sin, if they go off reading the newspaper or listening to the radio!” She would tape certain shows and have RF edit them. Were these presentations “framed”? You think? We spent a whole service in a May seminar one time just watching TV preachers and listening as Jane told us “where they were missing God.”   

    For sure, life at WOFF is framed. Hopefully, something in this list of defenses will help you stay away from being “framed” to your hurt. There is so much more that could be covered on this subject, we may come back to it in a future 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 271.

    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)

     How does this apply to WOFF and the “fear-frames” used by Jane Whaley? As I first read this it became very clear that a “fear-frame” was never used to fear a GAIN. Jane always used a fear-frame to FEAR A LOSS! Thus the WOFF member is “acutely loss-averse and thus extraordinarily sensitive to loss frames.” as anyone else would be according to the evidence found in these studies! Jane never used to “fear” in the context of gaining heaven! She never warned member to fear making God happy or fear making her happy! Why? From what I read, there would be no motivation to “fear a gain, only a loss!” She crafted her influence to be based in fear because she found she got/gets better results! Is this so simple to yet be so accurate?

   WOFF rules whether spoken or unspoken were mainly “don’ts” and not “dos”. If you didn’t obey, there was fear of a LOSS! The results were to be feared. Examples: If you leave you will – lose your job, lose your house, lose your car, (if you ever had one..) lose your family, lose your friends, lose your salvation, lose your call, lose your dog, lose your cat, lose your direction, lose your sanity, lose your health… do you see the pattern? It was never if you leave you will gain your freedom, gain your family back, have a better job, have a better mental outlook, have less stress ( a good “loss”!) have freedoms offered others in America that you checked at the WOF sanctuary door when you joined… possibly gain your true relationship with Jesus because you move from a fear-life to faith-life!

    The biggest fear-frame used by Jane is “If you leave you move from the known to the UNKNOWN.”  You lose what you know and have become familiar with even as bad as you may think it is. You move off into a place that Jane paints as much worse – no matter how potentially better it really could/would be! Jane uses the FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN to keep her faithful shaking their heads with doubt. They doubt that life in the “world” could be any better than life in WOFF. After all, many have been in for so long and have heard the fear-frame for so long, they have NO confidence they could exist in what to them is “the great unknown”! Couple that fear of the unknown with the solid distrust they have allowed to be planted in them towards non-WOFF members and you get some idea how difficult it is for WOFF members to leave and stay out. When WOFF members leave they must immediately get help and support to overcome the fear-frames that have been used on them and been planted in them.

    Look at it this way… when you look at the WOFF “church” grounds, you don’t see a fence. (yet) But, when you look at WOFF members you should have the idea that each one of them has been surrounded with fear-frames and has around them an invisible chain link fence of fear that keeps them locked away unto Jane’s will and desires. What is the key to break the chains of fear? It is different for each person, there is no set formula. As Rhoads mentions on a page of the source text titled “Cult Influence Tactics”, “… I can find nothing magic, supernatural, fantastic, or even extraordinary in the way that members are attracted to and kept in cults. I’m as fascinated with “magic bullet” theories as anyone, and yet I can find almost nothing in the cultist’s repertoire that isn’t already in the social influence literature.” There is no “magic” to getting folks in or keeping folks in a cult. In my opinion, there is a process for someone to come out. There has to be a break in the fence and a destroying doubt that begins to tear at the strength of the fear of a loss! The fear of losing the “comfort of the cult” has to be overcome and a ray of hope that life outside the framing fence of fear is worth exploring. There just could be freedoms and joy outside the fence of fear!

    So, we add this to Jane’s working job description- fence builder. She builds fences of fear around her members to keep them locked away unto her desires, her wishes and her “needs”. Does this make sense? Is this a plausible explanation for what outsiders see when they are around WOFF members? Does this explain their reaction to questions about Jane and how they go to her to get “the will of God”? What are they really asking for when they seek Jane’s “counsel”? As I see it, when a WOFF member goes to Jane for answers or permission, they are asking for relief from the fears of doing something wrong and incurring some kind of loss. Loss of what really depends on the situation. It could be something as basic as the loss of Jane’s perceived approval. It could be something as major as preventing the loss of their access to WOFF and the fear-relief that comes with membership in the group.  

    Jane builds the fears in her members and makes sure they know that leaving the group will only bring upon them that which they have been trained to fear- the “loss” of everything good. Does anyone else see this pattern? When a new member comes in, their indoctrination moves into high gear as Jane and her leaders seek to build fears in the member. Fears that are meant to keep them inside WOFF and actually apart from God. “Don’t do that, Don’t  say that, Don’t think that, Don’t spend time around that person, Don’t wear that… if you do this will happen…” These fears are fears of losing something near and dear to them. That member is trained then to see staying inside WOFF as the only way to relieve the fear of that loss.  

    In the next post on this subject, we will review the “Frame Defense” that Rhoads puts forth and see how this could relate to life at WOFF. How could a prospective member put up a defense against the fear-frame used by Jane Whaley? Could these techniques prove useful for present members of WOFF? Would knowing how to defend against frames be useful skill in other areas of life? Check back soon for the next post on this subject. Comments are welcome.

   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 270.

     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.

     Rhoads writes about the second part of the definition of a “frame”: 2) A frame “manipulates salience.” That is, it directs the viewer to consider certain features and ignore others. A way that Rhoads mentions this can be done is to mark or label a certain feature that draws away the focus on other features. He says labeling folks as “blue collar” or “intellectual” or “an athlete” emphasizes one particular feature of that person. Perception may become organized around the label.” Well, John, every group has labels… right? That may be true in regard to organization or levels of achievement. But, from my understanding, Rhoads is saying these labels are meant to divert and focus attention on some feature that is stressed and made of bigger importance than deserved.

   How did this play out at WOFF? Come on! That one is too easy! Any person who had a DEVIL label- was automatically BAD! All else they ever did was wrong and all they would do after that label was in question until Jane said they were “free from that devil”- whatever that devil may be. Beware, getting free from one devil does not ever automatically allow you to be free from another. You were constantly subject to being labeled as having another “ put any word here devil” and have to start the process of “deliverance” or “getting free from that devil” all over again. There was a constant struggle to dodge the “devil” label and act or seem to be free from known, recognizable devils. When you were being labeled with a devil ALL ELSE YOU EVER HAD DONE THAT HAD ANY MERIT WAS IN QUESTION! Even your family and friends were scrutinized to see if they had the same devil or if one of them had given their devil to you! You were even asked about family and friends not in WOFF. What kind of devils did they have that you may have inherited or picked up from them? Does this sound ridiculous or what? But, while inside WOFF- life is ruled by the labels of devils– not the love of God. That was/is the sad part. I did not see how this method of operation to keep folks constantly under some sort of compulsion to act in a certain way to be “free from that devil” was so far from true Christianity that truly embarrasses me to even admit I was a working part of the sham. I furthered the travesty on my friends and my family inside WOFF. Can you see how this whole labeling/framing routine was a set-up to break up friends and families- since who wants to be “full of devils” or risk your life in WOFF or your “call of God” or “chance to make it to heaven” by fellowshipping or living with someone who “doesn’t want to be free from their devils?” Ask the people whose families are broken and they still live inside WOFF? Was their choice worth the broken relationship? Are they so free from devils and in a higher place in God that the destroying/wasting of the friendship or family relationships was well worth it? Did the one true God in heaven actually require that? Really?

   Honestly, years ago, when we first began to attend the “Word of Life Training Center” in Greenville, we filled out applications to see if we would/could be accepted. (really?) Anyway, several of the questions required you to put down all the “sinful” activities you EVER participated in. Yes, if you ever smoked, drank alcohol, had pre-marital sex, adulterous sexual relations, drugs, were in karate, heavy into rock music, witchcraft, séances, and all kinds of other stuff. (Use extra pages if needed…) What was the purpose of this? I look back and it was definite source material for future “deliverance” and mystical “prayer” type stuff. Yes, those would/could be used as devil labels for sure.      

    Another label you were given was “born again” or “not born again”. If you were “born again”, then you had a chance to possibly some day do or say something pleasing to Jane. If you were “not born again”, then you had no chance to do anything but “repent to Jesus” (so Jane could approve) and then maybe you could be “saved” and “learn God’s ways” (as Jane taught them..). Until you were “born again” and Jane knew it, you were going NOWHERE at WOFF!  

   Truthfully, here is where I must admit my failure. I must admit that there is no way in this post to retell all the labels that Jane used/uses in ruling her kingdom of WOFF. She is better at crafting labels to frame people than I am able to remember. I will mention a few more as I am sure that many more have been created since my tour ended. You could be labeled as rebellious, unclean, full of the unclean, a pervert, perverted, full of perversion, a Jezebel, an Ahab, a Judas, Cain, have the spirit of Cain, a witch, a warlock, a Leviathan, or have the spirit of a Leviathan, fool, or have a foolish spirit, a glutton, or have a gluttonous spirit, you could be taken over by a spirit of greed or alcohol or hunger for drugs or… you get the picture. Should I forget, one could have the spirit of Korah, Dathan and Abiram?

   Rhoads explains the last part of his definition of a frame: “3) A frame influences “subsequent judgment.” The frame precedes a persuasive attempt, and implies a certain organization for the information that follows… Information received after the frame is delivered may be organized and resized to fit within the parameters established by the frame. The frame not only contains, but constrains. The frame helps create the picture we view.” This is exactly why the “frame” is labeled as a tool of influence. Groups like WOFF are not the only groups who purpose to influence others. So, they are not the only one who uses “frames” per se. And yes, the subject cannot be covered in depth here as Rhoads admits he does not pretend to do on his website. I do not pretend to have an in-depth, professional understanding of the term; but, I see enough to confidently say that I have spent many years in a group where the leader used/uses the technique to lead, force, and coerce others to a subsequent judgment. That judgment was about people, about Scripture, about political situations or politicians. Those framed agreements were leading us as members to conclusions about court situations, holiday celebrations, historical events and other matters. But, ultimately the frames were meant to lead us into a judgment about Jane. As much as she would deny it, Jane cared/cares what her members think about her. Is she holy? Is she righteous? Is she sinless? Is she leading a cult or a group of men, women and children to the very throne of God? Does she hear God with more accuracy than any other human on the planet? If a particular member looses confidence in her perfection, she has learned to move onto another and another and another in order lead them to believe in her perfection and holiness and her gift and her prayers and her love and her purity and her “loving heart”. It is all about Jane. How can I say that and not back up one bit? Let me explain briefly and then close for now.  

     As I considered what “frame” was used at WOFF by Jane Whaley, it became clear to me that the frame was fear. The frame may take on different names, or forms, or shapes or sizes, but it was a “fear-frame” through and through. Jane constantly uses a “fear-frame” to control her members and anyone who will listen, WOFF member or not. Many times, I would have to say that Jane Whaley was/is famous in my mind for being able to call someone a name of some sort with such a high pitched scream as a Comanche on the war path, that the delivering of the label was more effective than the label itself. The scream would literally make people (like me) jump. Sometimes, she would let out a scream that would cause the whole congregation to jump, startled and then fall back in their seats. She then would chuckle as if satisfied with her power to control others. These exercises would strengthen her fear power over her members. Jane frames her messages, her actions, her life’s-work with fear that if you don’t believe as she believes and do as she says do (under the guise that God has told her to tell you), then you will not make it to heaven, you will fall ill, you will die in a wreck, you will be paralyzed in a wreck, you will lose your job, your house, your family, your dog, your cat, lose your call of God, lose your ministry, lose your way, lose your sanity, lose your whatever… In my opinion, since Jane has to constantly use fear to get others to believe her message, to stay in her kingdom, to validate her ministry, to agree that her life has purpose; then she is not very acquainted with the God she supposes to preach about. Let’s consider this:

¹⁸There is no fear in love [dread does not exist], but full-grown (complete, perfect) love ^[a]turns fear out of doors and expels every trace of terror! For fear ^[b]brings with it the thought of punishment, and [so] he who is afraid has not reached the full maturity of love [is not yet grown into love’s complete perfection].1 John 4:18 (Amplified)

   In the next post in this series we will review more about framing. We will explain how fear of a loss is a very effective motivator. That is a technique which Jane has down to a science. Would you agree?  Please, check back soon for the next post in this series on framing.

    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 269.

    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:

 “Robert Lifton writes about “mystical manipulation”, “Initiated from above, it seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment. This element of planned spontaneity… must assume for the manipulated a near mystical quality.” (page 422) Who would deny the apparent “spontaneity” in the WOFF services? Each WOFF services appeared to be directed or planned by Jane in the meeting of leadership before each service.  But in reality and practice, she changed the direction of many services “because God was speaking her…”. She said many times, “I had not planned to go this direction but I feel God speaking me to do this” or say this or change directions…. Who can deny that this (was)is the way Jane Whaley leads WOFF services? Then at the end of the service, “Well, look how God lead us, He knows what He is doing.”

    At the risk of getting ahead of myself, when I began reading this information on framing, my mind automatically began reeling with the correlation to Lifton’s work. Jane Whaley “framed” her services with the mystical, the spontaneous, and the elusive. To the unlearned, which I considered myself during that time; it seemed “normal” and almost necessary for her to bring the “word of God” to His people. When in reality, I look back and see how self-serving it all was. Jane used the “mystical” to build her power and further control over the members. It was a technique used to fashion a culture built around her, her gift, her ability to “hear God” and tell you when you weren’t hearing God; which for regular members – was most of the time.

   The mystical manipulation coupled with the foregone conclusion of members that Jane was/is that person that was/is further along in the spirit; she was/is that person who could see clearer and hear more accurately- the will of God for your life. She became in essence- the voice of God to her faithful members. How do we know? Watch and listen and see for yourself. Do WOFF members make decisions or moves without consulting Jane? Is this just an exercise of good manners or one of necessity in their lives? When a crisis arises, do cell phones light up and frantic looks abound? Who are they calling? Do you know? So, for the members of WOFF, the framing is done by Jane. What is this “framing”? How did it evolve?

   While I intend to give as much information as needed to make the comparisons, my writing will not replace your reading of the material for yourself. I do not intend to rewrite his entire work, but only draw out parts that are helpful to answer our questions about “framing” and life at WOFF. Rhoads continues as he outlines three situations where a type of framing occurs. The first situation is called a “reframe”. Basically, this occurs when a person has a decision to make between two options and considerations in the decision process are redirected or “reframed” to promote a certain conclusion regardless of other  factors. He used an example of a man considering the purchase of a VCR. When the thoughts revolved around the movies he could watch and not the cost or affordability, the decision to buy becomes a foregone conclusion. This is “the least detectable and perhaps most powerful type of frame.” Why- because many times it occurs internally and we seek environmental clues to reaffirm our choice.

    Does this occur at WOFF? At this time, I can only answer for myself. When my wife and I were asked by Jane Whaley about moving to Spindale in January 2002, we answered yes, we need the breakthroughs that we thought would come with moving into WOFF. That was the answer Jane wanted to hear. Was there even a chance we would say no? The question of practicality was reframed with the frame of spirituality. It was “obvious” staying in Greenville was “less spiritual”. Who wanted to be considered “less spiritual” or even God forbid- “rebellious”?  Does that make sense? I was totally oblivious as to the requirements of living inside WOFF and how that would affect my life in the future. To the best of my remembrance, this occurred on the first Sunday evening in 2002.

    The next type of frame explained by Rhoads is the “focus frame”. Plainly put, the focus of the question or decision is redirected to accentuate the perceived attractive qualities of a product or issue in order to influence the decision made. During the process of moving to WOFF from Greenville, being in the will of God was stressed, being with God’s people was stressed and having the children in a larger school was stressed. What was not stressed was the high unemployment in the county. What was not stressed was how difficult it would be to sell our home in Greenville. (it took a year…) What were not talked about beforehand were the MAJOR discipline issues in the household where we moved when we arrived in Spindale. What was not talked about was the absolute hand that Jane used to rule the lives of members in Spindale. We did not have the full picture while we lived in Greenville. We moved by focusing on the perceived spiritual benefits and not on the practical issues or realities. It was a basic snow job.

    The next type of frame explained by Rhoads is the “contrast frame”. He explains this with an example of a couple being sold a set of encyclopedias while the salesman compares the prices to a can of soda a day for the education the books would bring to the children. Who would not want the education when it is compared to a soda? Likewise, who would want to stay in Greenville, SC and not move to WOFF; while you could lose your place in God or the call of God on your life or even your chance to make it to heaven? Do you see? Some stayed and tried to make the trips to Spindale. For most, it became too hard and they quit coming. They were considered “unspiritual” or “out of the will of God”. But, really, were they? Or had the contrast frame just not worked on them for some reason? The truth is many moved pursing the “education” and found it cost a lot more than a can of soda…. Oh, we became educated alright. When we moved into WOFF and things settled down a little, we began our education on how and why life revolves around being submitted to authority. Who was/is that authority? Who do you think? Do we need to “lock-in” about this?

    We learned how life was framed at WOFF and who was at the center of every frame. In our next post on this subject, 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 in this series. I believe this “fear-frame” concept is vital to understanding life for members of WOFF.

    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 268.

    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.  

    Dr. Rhoads quotes from Steven Hassan’s work in 1990 (Hassan, Steven. (1990). Combatting Cult Mind Control. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press. (ISBN 0-89281-311-3) to further differentiate benign groups from controlling cults: “Also, religions and altruistic movements typically lack the distinguishing characteristics of overbearing authoritarian control, the use of deception in recruitment, the use of coercive influence techniques, and the replacement of one identity with another which would not have been freely chosen by the individual before joining the group.  Can any former or present member honestly say that WOFF is free from “authoritarian control”? Is you don’t see it, then you have not been inside WOFF.  What about “deception in recruitment”? Is any prospective member ever told the whole truth when it comes to how their life will change when they become faithful WOFF members? I was not. Former members: Did you understand how pervasive the reach of Jane Whaley could/would be in your life as you considered joining? Was it glossed over or excused or just not explained at all? For those former members who were born into WOFF: Did it become obvious over time how controlled you had been- once you left? What is freedom like? Do you want to be controlled again as you were inside of WOFF?

    What about “the use of coercive influence techniques”? Anyone see that in WOFF-life? Has anyone ever been “blasted” or rebuked in public meetings or shunned or put on church discipline while in WOFF? I was. Were there freedoms to come and go and live the typical American life inside of WOFF? For me, the freedoms eroded gradually as you were encouraged to “pursue the will of God”. That “will” was translated and interpreted by none other than – Jane Whaley. Can that be denied?  And we then consider “the replacement of one identity with another”? If you doubt that WOFF members have their identities altered or replaced; consider, would that be one reason former members can have a hard time adjusting to their new life outside? Could it be that they struggle to find out who they really are apart from the closed, legalistic, controlling environment of WOFF? Even if there is a struggle to adapt isn’t the struggle and the victory better than living your life under a false WOFF/Jane given identity and never really knowing who God meant you to be?

    The author then moves on the answer the question – what kind of people join cults? “For the most part, normal, average people join cults–people like you and me. Research indicates that approximately two-thirds of cult members are psychologically healthy people that come from normal families.”  And further he quotes Hassan again, “Cults prefer intelligent, productive individuals who are able to contribute money and talent to “the cause,” whatever it may be.” I can say that was true for the folks I was among at WOFF. They were mostly normal folks wanting to serve God and do their best for “the cause”. What was that “cause”? Whatever Jane wanted or needed at the time. Rhoads goes on to explain the answer further. He writes about environmental factors and personality factors which influence people to join cults. It is too lengthy to go into here, but certainly well worth the read.

    Rhoads writes further that there is no one “magic bullet” technique or elusive secret thing that cult leaders use to recruit and/or keep their members. He says that finding that one “secret” is what some are concerned with but he “find(s) almost nothing in the cultist’s repertoire that isn’t already in the social influence literature”. He continues – “I’ve been able to identify about 30 influence tactics (depending on how finely you make the divisions within types), which are used to varying degrees in cults. They appear to group themselves into two types: the first set are used to attract recruits (I call these get-tactics), and the second set are used to keep members (I call these keep-tactics).”  Very wisely, he does not review all the techniques and thus become a resource for cult leaders! He does however mention one technique worth sharing, which is in his estimation is “a common one, already known by any cult leader worth his salt.” (or her salt…)

      In order to explain, I must quote a paragraph that outlines a generic scenario which exhibits the technique labeled “The Hot-Seat Technique”. After this quote, I will relate it to my experience inside of WOFF. “Imagine you enter a dimly-lit room inside the cult compound and you see the cult members sitting in a large circle around a centrally-located chair. At the summons of the leader, an individual cult member slowly rises, walks toward the chair, and sits. The leader says, “Tell us your shortcomings this week, Aaron. Purify yourself by confessing to us all.” And so Aaron thinks, and then begins to speak. “Well, I doubted our teachings about the afterlife for a few moments on Monday. And I felt base sexual desire toward a woman on Tuesday. . .” and so on. His confession is met with a combination of alternating disapproval for his confessions and praise for “coming clean” by the rest of the group. As Aaron becomes overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of his hideous sins, he begins to weep, and is exhorted by the leader to improve himself, to resist doubts and base urges, etc., and redirects Aaron’s confessional into an extemporaneous exhortation to the group, which largely humiliates Aaron, while simultaneously lauding him for his confession.” (emphasis added)

   For the purist, there were no “dimly lit” rooms inside of WOFF that I was aware of. The circles were not always large, though sometimes they were quite large. But, who can deny that this scenario did not play out OVER and OVER inside of WOFF? At times, it was called the “Truth Circle”. Suppose there was some flack about that and the name was dropped. But, for sure, the circle around a chair in the middle had not died out or been replaced as long as I was there at WOFF! I know I was in the middle of my share of them. For that matter, I sat in on several as a “helper”.  The logistics changed over time. Sometimes there was no group leader present, but if you decided to not participate or “give your heart”, you could get a personal session to “help you get a breakthrough”… It seems fitting to mention here the series posted on Loud Prayer and Deliverance. Link… https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=599

    Rhoads explains further, “The primary purpose of this exercise is to reduce self-esteem. It’s an excellent example of a social influence principle that states the following: A person with low self-esteem will be more persuadable than a person with high self-esteem when the advocated message is weak. Notice the important qualifier: “…when the advocated message is weak.” There’s no simple linear relationship between self-esteem and persuasion.”  Who would deny that “self-esteem” was a prosecutable offense inside of WOFF? If you were showed any “self-esteem”, you had a devil. So, the purpose/result of the Truth Circle and in many cases the prayer sessions was to help you “depend on Jesus and NOT yourself”!  As you consider the social structure and relational dynamics inside WOFF- who had the final say to whether or not you were “depending on Jesus”? You got it! Jane Whaley! That was the result of the pyramidal structure and the power grid of the group.  I cannot say that the resulting subservience of all members to Jane was premeditated in 1979 when the group was formed, but for sure, it seems to work well for Jane now. She has this technique down pat and certainly combined with the control dynamics of loud prayer- the hot seat technique is another signature practice of WOFF.

    Moving into an explanation by citing a study about this technique, Rhoads backs up his work and goes into detail which is not practical to share here. Again, a good read for those wanting to learn more. He does mention a survivor of Heaven’s Gate, “In fact, D’Angelo (the survivor) admits to having been trained to “not be so confident!”  Could any former members of WOFF agree with that statement? In practice, WOFF members were/are trained to be confident only in their desire to obey God- which in their reality was/is Jane. She was/is the only voice of God for the faithful WOFF members. We will share more from this website. I have found other influence techniques that were/are used at WOFF.

   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 267.