Joseph, I am not amazed or confused

"No, I think it was wrong, and Anneke thinks it was wrong. You think it was wrong too.

What is "it" in this case? I've seen it defined by a board coordinator as an act of betrayal and intimidation that did serious damage to the people involved.

If you think this is "it," and "it" is wrong, please clearly state: I think Anneke's act of betrayal and intimidation was wrong. It would also help if you added, I acknowledge that the people involved who experienced her actions felt deeply offended and were hurt.

This is the kind of language people use when taking responsibility for behavior. They don't refer to a vague "it" as though everyone agrees on what "it" meant for the people involved.

If Anneke thinks "it" was wrong, then she should acknowledge that betrayal and intimidation is what the people involved experienced as a consequence of her actions and behavior.

It is IRRELEVANT what her intentions might have been at the time she acted. She may have thought she was obeying God and acting in a justifiable manner--a classic COG rationalization for hurtful behavior. However, intent is irrelevant to the people who experienced her actions and behavior as betrayal and intimidation.

"What I find amazing and confusing is that after someone admits they were wrong, the lenghts some folks will go through to grind it in their face."

Let's assume Anneke has actually admitted that she behaved in a way toward others that amounts to an act of betrayal and intimidation. There's a second step with regard to accountability that's called "making an amends." Simply put, it means repairing the damage done. She cannot repair the damage if she cannot hear and accept that the people she hurt were, in fact, deeply, deeply offended.

In the real world of people who are serious about repairing seriously damaged relationships, the perpetrator needs to hear in some detail about the pain and suffering s/he caused. That's how it works when offenders of all sorts (adulterers, child abusers, alcoholics) decide they want to make an amends for the damage they have done. It's called owning the consequences of your actions. It's painful and humiliating to face the hurt you've caused, but it is an essentially step in the healing process

Making an apology is much simpler. It is simply acknowledging that someone else suffered as a consequence of one's actions. What I'm hearing along these lines from you is a rationalization that goes, "I'm confused by the lengths you'll go to grind it in her face."

Once again, I have to ask: What is "it"? In this case, I believe "it" is about the pain and suffering that came as a consquence of betrayal and intimidation. Classic COG tactics have always been to minimize and dismiss the victim's pain--"it" doesn't exist, "it" is in the past and should be forgotten, and anyway, you're just bitter and making too big of a deal about "it". "It" wouldn't matter if you'd gotten the victory.

Joseph, if you had ever experienced "it"--i.e., the extreme and often chronic emotional distress that comes from being pspychologically intimidated and having your trust betrayed, you would not be amazed or confused by "it".

Because you seem prone to minimize and dismiss "it," I think you don't understand "it" very well and should take some time to learn more about the devastating consequences of the victimization that occurred in TF--and the patterns of victimization that still occurs between Exers who have not shaken off the social pathology of TF.