Steve Lortz

Considering the hidden agenda of the Momentus trainers, let's review what pjroberg noticed about Momentus' finances in his post of July 17, '04, 09:23 on page 5 of this thread. The Momentus training cost $150 per head, and the checks were made out to the local sponsors. The piece pjroberg quoted seemed to indicate that the trainers relied on the last session free-will donations for their piece of the pie. But that wasn't the case. In his post of July 13, '04, 15:16 on page 1 of this thread, pj posted a link to excultworld.com. If you click on that link, and then scroll down, you'll find another link to something called "Former Area Sponsor Explains Why She Now Rejects Momentus Training". This is the testimony of Marsha Robbins, who, along with her husband, sponsored three Momentus trainings in the Indianapolis area. She indicates that she and her husband LOST $6,000 on those three trainings. The Momentus organization required the local sponsors to pay the cost of the training up front. In return, the local sponsors received the franchise for selling seats in the training. If they could sell more seats than they had contracted for with Momentus, they got to keep the difference. The last session free-will offerings were PURE GRAVY for the trainers. However, if the local sponsors failed to fill the seats they had payed for, there were NO refunds. $6,000 at $150 per seat is 40 seats. Over the course of the three sessions the Robbinses sponsored, their recruitment fell forty seats short of the amount they had paid for. The hidden agenda of the Momentus trainers was to turn Momentus grads into recruiting machines, something they did with a vengence. They really liked John Lynn. The latest I read, John was bragging he had gotten 1,200 of his "closest friends" to take Momentus. At $150 a head, John Lynn was responsible for bringing $180,000 into the Momentus coffers. Dan and the other Myshiach leaders would invite him to go golfing, etc., stroking his ego muy mucho. John liked to feel that he was running with the big dogs. I don't know if it's still that way. It seems John would eventually run out of "closest friends". All for now. Love, Steve

Say, Evan, how many attendees were in your Momentus group? Love, Steve

Evan - You wrote, "Actually the point of the life boat exercise was to show people that they don't properly value their own lives. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY DISAGREEING WITH ME ON THAT." (emphasis added- Steve). There are MANY people who disagree with you on that, Evan, including myself. Why can't you even IMAGINE anybody finding anything about Momentus to be harmful? Makes a person think, huh? Love, Steve

ex10 informs us that she is going through an intense and rigorous training as part of her job. What's the difference between that sort of thing and Momentus? On page 99 of "Cults In Our Midst", Margaret Thaler Singer wrote, So, what WAS Momentus' agenda for us "grads"? To make us better Christians? Why? How? Maybe TheEvan will address these questions while I prepare my next post. Love, Steve

I'm going to have to do this in a number of brief posts rather than one long one. Please bear with me. FIRST - I also hold you in very high regard, ex10. I have had to give a large amount of thought to Momentus, and exactly what happened there. You may not have recognized the physical, emotional and spiritual abuse that took place during our Momentus training session, but it was there, as you may come to realize. oldiesman asked me to share what a typical day at Momentus was like. I can't really do that, because what happened on different days was planned to achieve different results. In her book, "Cults In Our Midst", Margaret Thaler Singer describes a variety of "cults" that are operative in our culture (not just religious). One type is called LGATs or "Large Group Awareness Trainings". This is the group that Momentus comes out of. On pages 193-195 of "Cults In Our Midst" Singer presents the following structure, That's pretty much the order of things that happened at Momentus, except it was abbreviated to four days instead of five. Some of the things I ommitted from the description because they were examples of what might happen at a "New Age" style LGAT. Momentus adopted instead a "Christian" camoflage and terminology. The trainers at Momentus didn't pressure us to sign up for another course, they exhorted us to recruit new people for the next Momentus. During the days that were intended to break us down, EVERYTHING was designed to be uncomfortable. The thermostat was either way too high or way too low. Restroom breaks were few, far between and short. And if you weren't back in your seat on time, they reamed you a new a$$-hole. The music was loud and disturbing. During the time the trainers were transforming from social pit bulls to the most endearing people we might ever hope to meet, the music was light and relaxing. During the dancing on the last day, the music was stirring and joyous. Different people may remember the music differently because they are thinking of what was played on different days, but ALL the music was calculated to manipulate our hearts through manipulating our physiology. More later! Love, Steve

Too many points for me to respond to at the moment. I'll be back. Love, Steve

CKnapp3 - The people who think they can't be broken are often the easiest to break. They tend not to consider the possibilities. The harder you fight the Momentus trainers, the more committed to Momentus you will become when you finally DO break. That's what happened with Mark Graeser. The reason I came out of Momentus relatively unscathed was because I reverted to my USN bootcamp startegy of maintaining the lowest profile possible. I remember thinking to myself, "If I could make it through ten weeks of bootcamp, I can make it through four days of this!" Unwittingly, I had put a four-day limit on my commitment to Momentus. Unfortunately for others, like the CES principals, they apparently didn't do anything similar, and are still stuck to the tar-baby. Love, Steve

Evan - YOU swore a solemn oath that you would completely disregard ANYTHING harmful that Momentus did to you, even if they killed you through their own negligence. If you made that oath at your heart level, then Momentus has to seem like a fine thing in your own heart. In your own heart, you WILL NOT RECOGNIZE anything about Momentus as harmful, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU PROMISED! It's not silly, and it's not a dead horse. It was sixteen months between the time I took the Momentus training and the time I realized I needed to repent of signing the hold harmless agreement. When I finally did repent, a lot of things began to fall into place in my understanding, regarding bad things that were happening in my life. The reason Jeremiah says the heart is deceitful above all things is because we are inclined to believe whatever comes out of it. After all, we're the ones who put those things in there to begin with. That's why we need the Word as a critic for the thoughts and intents of our hearts. Momentus messes with people at the heart level, Evan. The designers and trainers of Momentus are deliberately deceitful. CES and many of the people who became local sponsors were not DELIBERATELY deceitful. They were UNTHINKINGLY deceitful, simply following the Momentus handbook. Momentus uses deceitful means to plant deceitful things in people's hearts, Evan. ALL OF US who took Momentus were DECEIVED. If you do not renounce, at your heart level, your unthinking promise to hold Momentus harmless, you will NEVER recognize, this side of judgment, the deception Momentus planted in your heart. Love, Steve P.S. - It's no wonder the horse I am beating seems silly to you, Evan. You PROMISED that it would.

The Evan - If you ever want to know what Momentus really did to your life, and continues to do, you will have to change your commitment to the unthinking promise you made to regard EVERYTHING they did there as harmless. It wasn't. It still isn't. Love, Steve

RE: One of my previous posts: CES ignores the truth that Ephesians 2 says the exact same thing as Romans 9-11. Love, Steve

excathedra - You haven't been broken in the authorized way by the authorized people at the authorized price. Love, Steve

excathedra - ...have superior knowledge :-) Love, Steve

Arrogance... That's what we learned in TWI. And that's what some of us are still unconscious of... Love, Steve

"It's the self righteous, arrogant attitudes of those who claim to have superior knowledge, that annoys those of us who really do." Amen... and Amen, UncleHairy! Love, Steve

Danny - You wrote, "So Momentus teaches that human beings cannot be "broken" if they're going to receive the purest revelation from God... " I must not have made myself clear. Momentus teaches that human beings MUST be broken in order to receive the purest revelation from God. And those Momentus trainers are just the ones you're looking for if you REALLY want to break people. They've got breaking people honed down to an artform. And they only charge a small, nominal fee for the service :-( CES' spin on Paul is that he carried around a "Jewish mindset" that tainted the revelation he received for Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians. Paul's hardships at Jerusalem, recorded in the later part of Acts, were his "Momentus" experience that broke him of his "Jewish mindset". Then he was clear to receive the revelation of Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. This kind of thinking, that you can't function properly unless you've been broken, led to elitism with a vengence among the Momentus grads. It was worse than any name-tag envy in TWI. And it led to Momentus grads trying to break everyone around them, even though they were expressly forbidden to do so in the training itself. That was a major cause for the bitter division that followed in Momentus' wake where ever it went. Love, Steve

Jeff USAF etc, - I really have to wonder why you occassionally post stale CES material at Greasespot. The principals of CES will NEVER engage us in open dialogue here. They even refused to engage in open dialogue on their own website's "Dialogue Board". When they realized they couldn't control the content, and people were raising questions and concerns they couldn't honestly answer, they shut down the "Dialogue Board". They publish a list of X+1 reasons why they are different from TWI, yet the leaders are always right, don't bother trying to correct any errors. John, John and Mark may sit there politely and "hear" what you have to say, but they don't listen. In the early days, before they had published much of anything, they were open to new ideas. But once they started printing, recording and selling, their doctrines became set in stone. They will never reverse a major position with anywhere near as much fanfare as they originally announced it. John Lynn wrote that Momentus was "the greatest thing since the new birth!" They respond to the discovery of error with rationalization. If that doesn't work, they resort to benign neglect and hope their followers don't notice. It's true, John, John and Mark have renounced their former licentiousness. But their response has been legalistic. They come up with a believer's code of conduct, a list of ten articles which mirror the ten commandments remarkably. It seems that every article begins with the words 'I will...". Hmmmmmm... wasn't there somebody in the Old Testament who used to talk like that? CES may be kinder and gentler than TWI, but it's just as dishonest. And unfortunately, I DON'T think it's because of any deliberate maliciousness on the part of John, John and Mark. They are just unconscious of it. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it? The Word of God is... the critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Because John, John and Mark place the thoughts and intents of their hearts above the Word of God, by "rightly dividing" it, they have no critic, and their hearts deceive them. I love them. I wish they would repent. Love, Steve

Danny - Some of my basic assumptions don't agree with some of your basic assumptions, but I always enjoy dialoguing with you. You've done a lot of good research and given a lot of logically valid thought to the things you've found. I usually learn things from you, even if we attach different interpretations to those things. Whether or not we believe that Romans 9-11 was original or added later, CES teaches that it WAS original. We just can't rely on it, because God had to water-down the revelation due to Paul's "Jewish mindset". Paul had to be "broken" before he could receive the really good stuff. It's a good idea for everybody else to be "broken", too. Or at least that's how some people think and act. That comes straight out of Momentus. Love, Steve

oldiesman - You wrote, "I haven't seen or heard anything about Momentus while dealing with CES. I think we're talking about some old stuff here, not representative of the present happenings over at CES." Oldiesman, I was there. I worked closely with CES from the late-'80s to the mid-'90s. I was a contributor to, and on the editorial staff of "Dialogue" magazine. I faithfully attended the weekly fellowship in John Lynn's home, where he told me I could teach anytime he was out of town. I taught on biblical leadership at one of CES' Chicago meetings. I did the same teaching on one of CES' bimonthly tapes. I took Momentus. I attended the leadership meetings of The Living Word Fellowship. The influences of Momentus are STLL OPERATIVE at CES, both on doctrinal and practical levels. See my previous post to dmiller on page three of this thread. Love, Steve

Galen - You wrote, "It seems to me that most any doctrine you teach will be going along smoothly and then suddenly while everyone else is lapping it up, one person will jerk and have issues, and from that moment on that person is fighting everything the group stands for." If you think Momentus was a "class" like PFAL, you are mistaken. It's not your fault though. The participants of Momentus are sworn to secrecy so that others WON'T know that it isn't just a "class" like PFAL. I have repented of my foolish promise to keep the physical, emotional and spiritual abuses of the Momentus training secret. Momentus doesn't teach "doctrine". It is what's called "thought reform". It's purpose is to break you at an emotional level. Things don't go along smoothly. Every aspect, including the thermostat setting, is deliberately designed to be disturbing. People don't "lap it up" They endure the experience out of fear and humiliation. People don't just "jerk". This is the testimony of Jean Cofield, a personal acquaintance of mine (quoted with her permission): Hospitalization... suicide... divorce... the bitter disintegration of formerly loving fellowships... These things follow in the path of Momentus like wrecked trailers follow in the path of a tornado. Could there be a connection? Nah. Couldn't be. After all, Momentus is harmless. It must be the victim's fault. Kill the victim before the victim kills you! Love, Steve P.S. - "Kill the Victim Before the Victim Kills You" is the title of a WHOLE BOOK published by the same "great" people who brought you Momentus. Talk about blaming the victim!?!

Dear excathedra - The trainers spent the WHOLE AFTERNOON interrogating and berating all the people, individually, who came back late from break. There weren't much more than a half-a-dozen or so of them out of about sixty attendees. Each ONE of them was put on a hot seat, so the rest of us could know what would be in store for us if we didn't toe the line. Martindale's rants were just that. Undisciplined, emotional rants. The viciousness of the Momentus trainers was calculated, with deliberate intent to break the spirit of the diatribe's recipient, and to intimidate the rest of us. Momentus' intensity was at least one order of magnitude worse than anything I ever experienced in residence. Love, Steve

dmiller - You wrote, "If they [the principals of CES] made a mistake by 'advocating' momentous (my opinion), yet haven't spoken of it for 10 or 15 years, I tend to believe they (CES), has moved on to bigger and better things, and have left the past behind." The question becomes, just how much of the past have they really left behind? Do you realize that the dispensationalism Wierwille taught in PFAL, and that CES continues to teach, fails utterly in the face of Paul's words in Romans 9 through 11. When confronted with this truth, Graeser responded with a teaching about Paul's trip to Jerusalem. Graeser contended that Paul couldn't receive first-rate revelation until his "Jewish mindset" had been broken by his experiences in Jerusalem. Only the prison epistles, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, are bona fide, full-bore revelation. All the rest have been watered down because of Paul's "Jewish mindset". Therefore, we can safely disregard any part of Romans that disagrees with our pet theology. Where did Mark learn about "mindsets", and how important it is to "break" them? To this day, the principals of CES are using things they learned in Momentus to rationalize their errors. They may have TRIED to put OUR REMEMBRANCE of their past errors behind us, but they have NOT moved on to bigger and better things. Love, Steve

TheEvan - You wrote, "Steve, I've nothing to repent of regarding Momentus. From the sounds of it, I guess CES might. But I don't. Your broad brush isn't working for me." Evan, "Where's your commitment!?!" Remember that line? Remember how the trainers, at the end of the first break, took the people who came back late and brow-beat, and badgered, and bullied them about their lack of commitment? About how important it is to keep our promises? Remember how they gradually singled one of them out and hammered on him or her mercilessly until they broke that person's spirit? Did you know that was all scripted? Did you know the trainers discussed beforehand which "trainee" was most likely to give them trouble, and that they had singled him or her out before the group ever met? Did you know the purpose of that exercise was to cow the rest of us into submission? And look at the topic they used for terrifying us into submission; the importance of keeping promises, "Where's your commitment!?!" And what was one of the many promises you made just before that memorable session? "12. EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY: I hereby fully and forever discharge and release MM, Inc. and [insert initials of local sponsors] from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions, and causes of action whatsoever arising out of any damages, both in law and in equity, in any way resulting from personal, physical, psychological or emotional injuries, distress, or death arising from or in any way related to the TRAINING. This release from liability includes loss, damage or injury resulting from the negligence of MM, Inc. and [insert initials of local sponsors] from any other cause or causes." Sounds like a pretty broad brush to me. "To repent" doesn't mean "to feel bad" or "to feel guilty", even though those things are sometimes associated with repentance. "To repent" means "to change what you are committed to". They never taught THAT in Momentus, did they? Evan, if you have NOT changed your commitment to the promise to hold Momentus harmless, I CANNOT trust your interpretation of your experience to be complete. At an unconscious level, at your heart level, neither can you. For your own good, you need to repent of your foolish ["anoetos" = "unthinking"] promise to hold Momentus harmless. I KNOW that can be humbling. I had to do it, too. Love, Steve

I was in the same Momentus training that Bill Barton was in (see link in Hooner's post of July 13, 2004, 14:50, pg 1 of this thread). Momentus sought to remedy problems of the flesh by using tools of the flesh. The motivation of its parent organization is money. The leaders of CES were suckered, and they don't even know it. In their own eyes, they are too wise, too savvy, too knowledgable, to be taken in by anybody. Yet the truth is, their attitude makes them doubly vulnerable to deception. Every person who signed the "hold harmless agreement" swore a solemn oath that they would totally ignore any connections between the Momentus training and the damage it caused in their own lives or the lives of others. I don't trust the perceptions of anyone who has not repented of that foolish (Galatians 3:1; "anoetos" = "unthinking") oath. The leaders of CES were willing to accept a 5% attrition rate among the people they led into Momentus. They were willing to allow one in twenty of their followers to have their lives devastated for the sake of the "good" it did for the other 95%. That's a dandy thing if you're one of the 95%. If you just happen to be one of the 5%, then it's pretty much hell. To this day, the leaders of CES do not recognize the havoc they wreaked in the lives of their followers, because they swore the oath to hold Momentus harmless, and they haven't repented. I no longer trust their ability to lead. They led me into a trap once, and they still don't even recognize that it WAS a trap. If I continue to follow them, I'm only asking for trouble. The leaders of CES aren't evil or malicious. It's just that they're foolish enough to believe their own hype. Love, Steve

Oh Strange One - Robert E. Howard is best known as the author of the Conan the Barbarian stories from the golden age of pulp magazines. He wrote some stories about late Romans fighting the Picts in northern Britain. Angus MacBride does illustrations for the Osprey series of military reference books. He bases his reconstructions on what's known from the sources and archaelogical remains, but he manages to breathe a lot of life as well into his illustrations. His painting style is somewhat reminiscent of the Brandywine tradition (Howard Pyle, N.C. Wyeth, etc.). The fellow who played Lancelot also played Horatio Hornblower. One of the knights' stalwart underlings, I think they called him "Giles", was also one of Hornblower's stalwart underlings in the sea-stories. The film makers incorporated vast panoramas and a wide variety of romantic landscapes, just as Peter Jackson did in "The Lord of the Rings". The sound track also seemed to be influenced by LotR. Those aren't bad things. They contributed to my enjoyment. There is a "battle on the ice" in "King Arthur", that plays almost as an homage to Eisentstein's "battle on the ice" in "Alexander Nevsky". Also, some aspects of the filming of the battle of Badon Hill reminded me of Eisenstein. Eisenstein didn't have hand-held cameras though. The Inquisition arose in the 13th century, not primarily to convert pagans, but to persecute those the Church considered heretics, specifically the Cathars. "King Arthur" implies that the Church was using techniques of the Inquisition to convert pagans in the 5th century. Augustine, like Calvin in later centuries, did not hold man's free-will in high regard. Since freedom is an important (and multi-faceted) theme in "King Arthur", the film makers explicitly make Arthur a Pelagian. I think that was cool, as well as theologically perceptive of them. Two-thumbs up for the movie! Like I said before, it's a good rip-roaring adventure yarn, with characters of more than two dimensions. If you liked "Pirates", "Count" and "Braveheart", you ought to enjoy "King Arthur". Love, Steve

I went to see "King Arthur" last night, and found the movie highly enjoyable. If a person goes looking for Disney's "Sword in the Stone" or Broadway's "Camelot", he'll be disappointed. But if he goes looking for a rip-roaring adventure yarn, "King Arthur" ought to meet his expectations. The writing reminded me of Robert E. Howard, and the visuals looked like Angus MacBride. Lancelot wasn't the only "Horatio Hornblower" alumnus I recognized in the cast. The settings and the sound track reminded me of "The Lord of the Rings". There were several aspects of the film that reminded me of Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky". The depiction of the Church was interesting. They squeezed the Inquisition back into the Dark Age, but the Church hierarchy HAD become pretty venal by that time. The film makers had the good taste to make Arthur a Pelagian heretic. All-in-all, a good movie, IMHO. Love, Steve