Archive of ‘Silence’ category
Cult leaders, and manipulative pastors, have a way of making up excuses for their behavior. If Christians aren’t careful, they’ll find themselves (and we’ll find our friends) making up excuses for their behavior, too.
You’ve heard it before. Church members and Christians essentially start excusing abuse and torment that their pastor (or another “man of God”) has done to others by saying, “Well, they’re just God’s mouthpiece,” or “Whoever got offended just wasn’t devoted enough to God,” or even, “It was all part of God’s plan. They must not be close enough to God.”
Some I’ve heard about myself and my situation:
“Lisa was just overly sensitive.”
“Lisa was just an immature Christian.”
“No one else was hurt.”
“It must have just been your Master’s Commission. We didn’t go through that. We had a great Director.”
“God told me to do it. I was just following His orders.”
“We fired that person. They’re not here anymore. Things have changed.”
What they really mean is a) we don’t give a shit b) we’re going to try to intimidate everyone in our church to believe us and not you c) we’re doing everything in our power to discredit you so you shut up and go away.
They don’t give a damn.
Pastor Daniel’s son has told me this about his father time and time again. “He could care less about you. In fact, he looks down on people like you.”
The bottom line is, (most) everything you hear from a controlling pastor or a cult leader after someone leaves and decides to speak up is an excuse.
An excuse for their behavior–their abusive behavior.
I remember being in Master’s Commission, when a student’s parents would complain about something we did. Nathan would shut them up and the other students by saying, “Things have changed. We don’t do that anymore.”
It was a lie. We never changed. We attempted to, but the truth is, Nathan ‘s ways were set in stone and wouldn’t budge. He taught all of us to disciple those under us with an iron fist, just as he did. Nothing was going to change. But, we had to live up to “expectations” and so we tried to tell people what they wanted to save our reputation.
Have you ever heard any of these excuses? In what context?
Have you ever met a pastor who was humble enough to admit his wrongdoing? If so, how did he present it? Did he apologize to the person he wronged?
Waco Tribune-Herald/May 6, 2007
By Cindy V. Culp
When it comes to cults, there’s an old joke among religious scholars: A cult is a cult is a cult — unless it’s my religious group.
That jest highlights the tendency many people have to treat the identification of cults almost like the pinpointing of pornography. They don’t have a good definition of what makes a cult, but they’re sure they’ll know one when they see it.
Experts’ approach to the subject is far more complex, whether discussing the Amish, the Branch Davidians, the Mormons or Homestead Heritage. Only a few scholars use the word “cult.” Most say it has become too loaded of a word and prefer terms such as “new religious group” or “alternative religious movement.”
Experts also have differing opinions about what puts a group into the question mark category. A few give the label to any religious group that doesn’t hold a specific set of doctrinal beliefs. Others say the only reliable dividing line is whether a group obeys the law. A lot linger somewhere in the middle.
Rick Ross, who heads up a religious research institute in New Jersey, is one expert who sees no problem in using the word cult. To him, there’s no reason not to use the term except for political correctness.
“Whether they call them cults, new religious movements or whatever, you see the same structure in behavior, the same structure in dynamics,” Ross said. “Groups that fit this pattern are very often unstable.”
Ross differs from some cult-watching organizations in that he doesn’t label a group a cult simply because of its theological beliefs. Rather, groups should be judged by their behavior, he said.
One classic sign of a cult is that it is personality-driven, Ross said. That means it has a charismatic leader or group of leaders who hold a tremendous amount of sway over members.
Another common characteristic is isolation, Ross said. Sometimes that isolation is physical, with members’ comings and goings being restricted.
But most often, isolation takes the form of members becoming completely absorbed in the group and its activities, Ross said. If members work, go to school and socialize only with each other, isolation is a real possibility. An especially troubling sign, he said, is when members are asked to cut off contact with family members.
“I call it discordant noise,” he said. “Anyone or anything that would raise troubling questions about the group is marginalized to the extreme, cut off.”
Also common is a persecution complex, he said. Members often have an “us- versus-them” attitude, perceiving simple disagreements as attacks.
“They say criticizing them is to go against God,” Ross said.
Another giveaway, he said, is when groups teach that anyone who leaves is flawed. Healthy groups generally believe people can have good reasons for leaving. Not so with cults, he said.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is Tim Miller, a professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas. Not only does he not use the word “cult,” but he takes issue with the characteristics that have been attached to the word.
The problem with them, Miller said, is that they don’t distinguish between good and bad expressions of those characteristics. For example, some of the most successful mainstream religious organizations have charismatic leaders.
The anti-cult movement often acts as if there are easy answers to the question of whether a group is dangerous, Miller said. But things are rarely black and white. Most involve judgment calls and points of view. What may seem sinister to one person may be perfectly normal to another, he said.
“I don’t know where you draw the line, frankly, except at the law,” Miller said.
William Dinges, a professor of religious studies at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., said one question he asks when evaluating religious groups is what kind of fruit they produce. That’s helpful because while the customs of some groups could be called cultic under the criteria of anti-cult organizations, they don’t truly fit that mold. The Amish are one example, he said.
One term that can be used to describe such groups are “radicalized expressions of religious commitment,” Dinges said. Characteristics include having a distinct boundary between it and others; being demanding of members; being galvanized around a charismatic personality; and having an intensified sense of mission.
Like Miller, Dinges says determining whether such groups are dangerous is subjective. Among the factors to weigh is whether they make it emotionally impossible to leave, whether they maintain members’ dignity, the amount of freedom they give members and whether there is a structure for airing and addressing conflict.
People also must consider how accepted certain behaviors are within that particular religious tradition, Dinges said. For example, becoming a monk may seem strange to many people, but it’s a very accepted part of the Catholic tradition.
Such factors also must be weighed in evaluating the stories of people who have come out of a group, Dinges said. In some cases, people’s horror stories stem from truly bad things that happened to them, he said,
In other instances, though, stories are tainted by a change in ex-members’ viewpoints, Dinges said. People can have mistaken or highly romanticized notions about what life in a particular group will be like, then become bitter when reality doesn’t match expectations.
Sometimes that happens because a group engages in false recruitment activities, he said. Other times it’s because people jump into situations without thoroughly understanding them.
“You have to educate yourself and, in a sense, know yourself. Trust your intuition.”
Ron Enroth, a professor of sociology at Westmont College in California, says all the spiritually abusive groups he has studied share common characteristics. They’re so similar that when he talks to ex-members and starts hearing details of their stories, “I almost feel like saying, ‘Stop, let me tell you the rest of the story.’ ”
One feature of such groups, Enroth said, is control-oriented leadership. Communication with outsiders is limited and questioning isn’t allowed inside the group.
Sometimes the control extends into intimate areas of followers’ lives, he said. In such cases, members are expected to ask permission to take vacations or switch jobs. Lifestyle rigidity is also common, with some groups having an almost unfathomable list of rules. One he studied outlawed striped running shoes because they supposedly were connected to homosexuality, he said. Another forbid members to use the word “pregnant.” Instead they were commanded to say a woman was “with child.”
Such groups are also spiritual elitists, Enroth said. They use arrogant or high-minded terms to describe themselves and often have disparaging descriptions for other churches, he said.
“They present themselves as the model Christian church or the model Christian organization…and say they provide unparalleled fellowship and superior spirituality,” Enroth said.
In addition, such groups are usually paranoid and perceive any criticism as persecution, Enroth said. They paint people who leave as defectors and say attacks against them are ultimately the work of Satan.
“By describing criticism as slander, they can almost be shielded from criticism,” Enroth said.
Enroth believes the number of spiritually abusive groups is growing due to a spike in the number of independent churches in evangelical and fundamentalist circles. People like them because they are less formal and less hierarchical than traditional churches, he said.
But with that independence also comes the potential for trouble, he said.
“They are, in a sense, spiritual Lone Rangers,” Enroth said. “That’s where the potential for sliding off the cliff comes into play.”
I came across this blog, Provender, and wanted to share the following article I saw there. I loved reading many of the articles on this website, but this particular one stuck out to me.
As I’ve been blogging, the old guilt from my dictator-pastors has been creeping in, and I’ve been wondering if speaking up has been the right thing to do.
Despite numerous “Thank you” emails and text messages I’ve received, a part of me felt exposed and vulnerable and I was mistaking that for being wrong.
What I realized was that I’d been in a cult for seven years, and I’d been taught that speaking out against your “spiritual authority” was wrong, rebellious, and Satanic.
I now know that that is wrong. Even the United States of America has given us Freedom of Speech–the First Amendment right.
What is that First Amendment? According to http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, think about this: If Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances, then why can’t a church member (or several) petition a pastor regarding their grievances?
The answer: Abusive pastors sway their congregations not to speak up against their teachings. They may even say they are open to criticism, but will rebuke, fire, or humiliate their patrons if they speak up.
Years ago, I worked for a senior pastor of a large church. I’ve already mentioned names, but this time it’s MY story, not his. As I came to work for this pastor, I sat down with his wife and him, and we talked about my former position as executive assistant, discipleship leader, conference planner and nanny for the pastor I worked for. I told him I was getting paid $100 a month and this senior pastor was shocked. He and his wife looked at each other and said, “We had no idea they were paying you that little!”
To which I wondered, How could you move our entire staff out here and not question the director of this group how much we were making?! Sounds like a lie to me…
I simply answered them that he was in fact paying me so little and that I survived by my parents paying off my credit card bills every month, and sending me checks and cash for spending money. Thankfully, my parents were business owners and their business was doing really well. Unfortunately, my parents didn’t know the type of the spiritual abuse I was putting up with, nor did they know the employment laws that the church I was working for was violating. Otherwise, my parents wouldn’t have let me stay out there. It was their financial contributions, which they gave “unto the Lord,” that kept me out there.
These senior pastors acted like the heroes and acted appalled at the way my director/mentor had treated me for years. He offered me $500 a month plus room and board. I graciously accepted. I’m sure I cried. He said that he could see that I was burnt out and exhausted and needed a break from ministry while I was rejuvenated. He made a promise to me that the year I worked for him would be refreshing and relaxing, and part-time.
It didn’t happen that way.
I ended up being on-call around the clock, every day of the week. I was called a live-in nanny, without the live-in part (just with the hours). I loved the children I worked with–and in fact, I still do. I have the best memories of reading them bedtime stories and going frog hunting with them in the Hundred Acre woods. They were the best children I’ve ever been a nanny to, and despite not being paid minimum wage (well under, in fact) and despite the fact that their parents were breaking the Federal Minimum Wage Law, I sure did love them dearly.
One afternoon, I decided that enough was enough, though. When I first got hired, the pastor said, “If you ever disagree with anything we do, please come talk to us. We’re more than open.”
I remembered that moment. I asked them for a meeting.
I was very humble, self-less, and sweet that day, as ever other, but I asked them for a raise. I told them that I needed to earn more than $500 a month for the over 60 hours a week I was working, and that I’d even get a job Mondays or a night job, if they let me take some hours off at night.
Not only did they refuse to pay me more, they refused my right to work a second job, and the worst part is…they called me UNGRATEFUL.
That hurt worse than anything. It came from the pastors wife, whom I’d had (up until that moment) nothing but respect and love for. She told me I was selfish and ungrateful and couldn’t believe I was asking them for that.
The pastor went on to say that my $500 a month was actually $1,000 a month, because of the room and board he included. I knew that wasn’t true. First of all, the barn I lived in could never be rented out for that amount of money and the food they fed us was donated from Albertson’s day-old meat and other local donations. Not to mention, it was incredibly unhealthy and inedible.
Later, though, I learned what would be the real clincher: the Federal Labor Laws deny the employer the right to add “room and board” into their wages. It is illegal!
The sad part is, though, that I was innocent enough to believe my pastors at one time. I thought that they were being honest when they said if I had a problem with something they did or taught, I could approach them.
Spiritually abusive pastors do not allow you to speak up–or when they do..watch out: You’re about to get yelled out, rebuked, or humiliated.
Various sources on spiritual abuse warn about the Can’t Talk rule (or the Don’t Talk rule) in abusive groups. In spiritually manipulative churches, pastors don’t usually come right out and tell you not to talk about concerns in the church. They are much more subtle.
They might hint at “the enemy” who incites people to gossip, or they may denounce weak Christians who whisper. They might blast the motives of anyone who brings a legitimate issue to the leadership, condemning them as self-centered, divisive or lazy.
They might emphasize grumbling and complaining as among the gravest of sins. They might compare those who raise issues to scoffers in Moses’ time, implying that if you dare mention a weakness of the church you are like the ungrateful Israelites that the good Moses ( read: church leader) had to put up with.
They might tell you to “get in line,” “submit to authority,” “don’t cause trouble,” shaming someone who brings honest questions and deflecting scrutiny. Some might tell you that you are not in harmony with “the mission” of the church, which often is just a high-sounding way of saying that the leader’s views are beyond question and accountability is not the business of a mere layperson.
By whatever means available, abusive pastors will shut down discussion and prevent accountability for suspect practices. The unspoken “don’t talk” rule makes this easy. Anyone who dares raise an issue to the light of day will be shut down, preached against, shunned, mistreated or shamed, either by open means or subtle means.
Perhaps some have left the church, and you have suspicions about why. Maybe the pastor has preached something that doesn’t line up with scripture. Maybe someone has been kicked out of church or removed from a ministry. Perhaps these uncomfortable practices have been increasing. Maybe the finances are not open to public view; or business meetings are closed or nonexistent. Perhaps teachers or musicians have complained about mistreatment and you are not sure who to believe.
Those living under a Can’t Talk or Don’t Talk rule know not to ask questions. They have been manipulated into remaining silent, even though their active conscience urges them to speak up. The reluctance to speak up is often disguised as virtue. You’re not a grumbler. You’re not a trouble maker. It’s someone else’s place to ask questions, not yours. You’re just a humble nobody. So the pastor or leader remains accountable to no one. He can do what he likes without opposition, no matter how questionable, unorthodox, ungodly — or in some cases, illegal.
If this describes the mechanism in place at your church, make sure to do a little research into spiritual abuse and see if other signs might not also be present in your group. The Can’t Talk rule is an unspoken rule meant to stifle and hide anything that challenges the control of a leader or that has the potential to put a leader in a bad light. It is often the tip of the iceburg.
You’ve probably heard the term slander before. You may have even heard that I’m “slandering pastors.”
The correct term would be “libel.”
Libel is written word against someone else, IF it is untrue.
Why am I not afraid of libel? Many reasons. The first is this: nothing I write about Daniel Jones, Nathan Davies or Lloyd Zeigler is untrue. I can either verify it (because it happened to me) or I have witnesses who can verify it happened. Multiple witnesses.
In 1964, there was a court case called New York Times vs. Sullivan. The case extended the protection offered the press by the First Amendment. L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., had filed a libel suit against the New York Times for publishing inaccurate information about certain actions taken by the Montgomery police department. In overturning a lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited if public officials could sue for inaccuracies that were made by mistake. The ruling made it more difficult for public officials to bring libel charges against the press, since the official had to prove that a harmful untruth was told maliciously and with reckless disregard for truth. (Source)
So, they would have to prove that I told a harmful untruth (STOPPED RIGHT THERE), and that I had a malicious and reckless disregard for the truth.
Case closed. I continue to speak. Join me. Or let them keep intimidating people into silence.
Where do I stand?
A Guest Post by Aaron Gates
After leaving a church group that I had been “professionally” affiliated with for five years I had a lot of questions to ask myself. I had to ask myself where to go to church; who my real friends were. Everyone I associated with on a regular basis I went to church with. When the dam finally broke I was engaged and about to start pre-marital counseling with the pastor. I was living with a family from the church. Two of the teenagers I worked closely with in the youth group lived in that house. It was a Thursday afternoon when I had finished up my extremely heated conversation with my pastor by telling him I was going to find somewhere else to go to church. When I got home I told the guys that I had a disagreement with Pastor S. and would not be going to church with them any more. When their Grandmother got home a little later I gave her the same vague description of why I was leaving. She said something very interesting to me. She said, and I quote, “You know what really happened is going to come out so you might as well tell me.” She was right and I knew it. So I responded, “You’re probably right but you aren’t going to hear it from me.” I promised myself I would not bad mouth the pastor to any of the church members or anyone affiliated with the church.
To this day I have not.
I have had more opportunities than I can count to tell people how badly I was treated. How violated I felt by people I trusted. I could have told the truth. I did not. Unfortunately I was not afforded the same courtesy.
The people at the church had always talked about our relationship as if we were family. So when I stopped attending that church I did not know what to expect.
Would they continue to treat me like family, or was I only family when I attended church with them?
So I was hurt when I realized that I was only a family member when I was a church member. I felt like I was mourning the death of myself; like part of who I was died, because part of me did. A huge part of my life was over, and I felt empty. I was stressed out by trying to live up to the expectations and standards that were set for me from the time I was 18. Then I felt broken and lost.
The conflict at the root of everything was that my relationship with God was founded on what I had been taught and told and made to experience. My relationship with God had been corralled in a direction that a pastor wanted me to go. I had a need to find out what I believed and needed to reconcile that with all that I had been taught for the past ten or so years.
I had to decide for myself where I stood.
What do I believe? That is a scary question.
I wanted to know if believing in God was even worth it. It took me a very long time to work everything out.
I wrote that like I have it all worked out. That’s funny. I don’t!
However, there are some things I know. I know that God loves me and He sent His Son to the world for that reason. I know that I chose to live for God before I went to Masters or to the church. I know that my relationship with Him is based on our mutual experience with each other. I believe that He is the way the truth and the life and no one can go to the Father except through Him. I also know that everyone has a different reaction to difficult situations and I don’t expect everyone to believe that. I know that in the church that God wants to see in the world there is room for everyone and room for different opinions and different convictions.
Some will say that there is only one way to be a Christian. I know that God made every person on earth different. Based on that, there are roughly six billion ways to have a relationship with God and it is not my place or anyone else’s to determine what that should look like for anyone. I also know that I lost sight of God because I was more concerned with what a group of people thought about me than what God thought about me. I know that I will never be in ministry in any capacity again, by choice.
But most importantly, I know God.
My name is Aaron Gates I live in Gulfport, MS with my wife Jenny and brand new daughter Rebecca. I have been blogging about my experience as a Christian and a new dad since August 2010. If anyone wants to contact me to talk about your experience in Master’s Commission, ministry, or anything else, I’d love to hear from you: email@example.com.
Check out my blog.
I received the following letter last night from Lloyd Zeigler, Chairman of the Master’s Commission International Network, relating to my 2008 inquiry http://www.mycultlife.com/?p=91 about the cult-like activities going on in Master’s Commission 3D in Lafayette, Louisiana http://www.mycultlife.com/?p=85 , http://www.mycultlife.com/?p=87. After almost two and a half years, this issue has been addressed and partly resolved.
I asked Lloyd Zeigler to provide for me the original letter sent to MC 3D, or as they now call themselves, Experience 3D, of the accusations he was presenting to them, in order to verify that all my issues were addressed, and also because a large group of people I had referred to him had contacted him with their issues. I want to ensure that their concerns were correctly addressed; however, I have not received any of these original documents, which Lloyd has promised to me the past two months. I assume they will be coming by the end of the month, but of that I can not be sure. I’ll share them here when I receive them, as I feel it’s our right as former students and staff to read them. I don’t believe any organization should hide those from the people they are trying to help.
While I’m truly sad that MC3D did not ever respond to my letters, or begin the dialogue I asked them to begin when I sent letters and made phone calls over two and a half years ago, I am happy that there was an investigation and appropriate action taken from the MCIN on the behalf of students and staff who have experienced abuse. This is a big statement for the MCIN to take to stand up against abuse.
I have much more to say about my OWN investigations into the misuse of staff members as unpaid interns and volunteers in the Master’s Commission International Network, Master’s Commission USA and groups of that nature, but I will save that for a post next week.
Look for it soon, but until then, please feel free to read the following letter and share it with anyone who has experienced abuse under the Master’s Commission 3D program that is currently directed by Gred Thompson, and formerly was directed by Nathan Davies and Tim Wilson. This Master’s Commission group is currently located in Lafayette, LA under the umbrella of Our Savior’s Church http://www.oursaviorschurch.com , an independent church senior pastored by Daniel and Maria Jones and senior associate pastors, Stuart and Lindsay Rollings, and associate pastors Nathan and Natalie Davies.
Master’s Commission 3D changed their name today to Experience 3D, as a result of the Master’s Commission International Network removing their affiliation status.
Part of the Experience 3D website http://www.leadin3d.com/#/welcome states: “Allow us to stress that this program is not for “ministry prima donnas”. We understand true, Biblical ministry to be servanthood. Much of a person’s character is built while doing the “unglamorous tasks” of ministry. A goal of Master’s is to cultivate Biblical character and servant leadership.”
What they mean to say by “ministry prima donnas” is that “servanthood” is their main way of training their students for leadership in churches. What they mean by servanthood is modern day slavery, where you as the student or parent will be paying to be used by the senior pastors and associate pastors of Our Savior’s Church, in order to be their live-in gardener, nanny, janitor, etc. all under the guise of become a “servant” to God. God has NO part in that form of servanthood!
If you’d like to read more about this “servanthood,” be my guest. There are many details on this website, and more first-hand accounts to come from this so-called leadership school.
Many thanks to the hours the MCIN Board spent meeting and discussing each student and staff members concerns when it came to these issues. I greatly appreciate each one of you taking action and responding to the great many written and verbal statements you received from this website and from people I’ve spoken to over the years. I was told this was a unanimous vote, and for that I am thankful.
I hope this incident will help Master’s Commission be a healthier place for students to attend in future years, if they should feel the need to go. Based on my experiences in Master’s Commission and the research and statements I’ve received over the years, I can not endorse or support any Master’s Commission group to students or parents who ask my opinion. However, if you do choose to go, I wish you the best, and I hope you realize that after today’s action the MCIN has taken against abuse, they’re working on becoming more of an advocate for students rights.
Since the MCIN does read this blog, I do wish that you would revisit and address the issue of payment for staff members, or “interns” or “volunteers” as many of you call them. I will be posting blogs relating to this issue in the weeks to come.
Please make that your next issue of concern, as I addressed it in 2008 and it has not yet been actualized.
August 26, 2010
RE: MASTER’S COMMISSION 3D AFFILIATE STATUS
To Whom It May Concern:
Master’s Commission International Network (“MCIN”) recently received several reports from individuals formerly associated with “Master’s Commission 3D” located in Broussard, Louisiana (“MC3D”). These reports were received in the form of letters, blog posts, and verbal reports.
In response to these varied reports, MCIN undertook and completed an investigation concerning MC3D. As part of its investigation, MCIN requested that MC3D provide MCIN’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) a detailed response to the various allegations and other concerns. Having concluded its investigation, MCIN presented the results to the Board.
In light of the facts and information presented to the Board, and after careful deliberation, the Board decided to terminate MC3D’s status as a Master’s Commission “Affiliate”.
We know this decision may affect students currently enrolled at MC3D, and as such, we informed MC3D that should any of their students desire to relocate to another Master’s Commission Affiliate in good standing, MCIN is available to assist them and answer questions they may have in that regard.
MCIN values the commitment and contribution of all students and leadership associated with the Master’s Commission Affiliates. Accordingly, we believe that our actions in this regard were both appropriate and necessary.
Lloyd Zeigler, Chairman
Master’s Commission International Network
Someone asked me today why I was writing this blog. I’ve been asked over the years why I want to write about my experiences. As I read the Epilogue to Elie Wiesel’s book, Night, I can only share with you his words. If they resonate with you, then you understand why I write this blog.
“…If we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.
And then I explain to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remained silent.
And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must–at that moment–become the center of the universe.
What all these victims need above all is to know that they are not alone; that we are not forgetting them, that when their voices are stifled we shall lend them ours, that while their freedom depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs.”
Taken from The Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech Delivered by Elie Wiesel in Oslo on December 10, 1986. For the entire speech, please click here: http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/nobelprizespeech.aspx