Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

Uh.......for me, Ruth Madoff comes to mind.

Exactly!.......when roa was channeled to twi-hq grounds in '78, and every year to follow, the control and wayspeak escaled with each year. By circling the wagons, wierwille drew 'his people' closer to him, closer to his agendas. The WOW program was his sales campaign....and the corps program were his instructed sales force. Remember those slogans and song lyrics, "It's good to be Home Again, been away too long"........like twi's hqtrs was OUR HOME. Yeah, riiiiight. Sure.....and twi was our family, just like Charles Manson's buzz with his followers were "The Family." Same draw.....same pitch.....same with Jim Jones. Then......one finds out about wierwille's sex predation, alcoholism, abuse, plagairism, lies, snow-pump calling, liberty lobby connections, paranoia, butt-smacking on corps girls, sex-mentoring to martindale, etc......and the gripping realization that we were in the clutches of a sociopathic con-man. Could it be any clearer...?????????

In the fall of 1979, the corps women had a get together in the Wierwille home. We men decided to pull a raid and swipe the big plate of nchos we knew they would have. We couldn't have done it without the permission of Mrs. Wierwille (hubby was away at the time), who gave us permission with only the request to be careful and not break anything. And, we also had the inside help of a "traitor", Naomi Townsend. After the successful raid, several of the women found us while we were standing around munching on the nachos, and were shocked by the presence of Naomi standing and munching with us. Later that fall, after hitching back to HQ alone from LEAD, arriving late on a saturday night, I pulled a solo rain on the pantry and filled myself, since I was starving. It's not like I took food that didn't belong to me, though. I founf a stash of tasty leftovers from Thanksgiving two days before that actually had been labelled to save for returning LEAD people. In fact, they never did give us that as a group, so I must have had some kind of revelation.

part#6--- audio missing

Old Chionese proverb: Egg Foo yung left out overnight is egg foo old.

Scout, I agree with alot of what ExCathedra said to you, except that I wasn't really that beaten down like she was. I believe that her experience as a woman differed from mine as a dumba$$ 22 year old kid though. I was very oblivious to upper eschelon shenanigans, and actually went there to "have my a$$ kicked and to learn something about discipline because I grew up lazy and hated work but learned from the Bible that work was "a good thing". So, I welcomed all of the pressure with the goal of looking at it and overcoming it. Surely there was some serious bs from the big wigs, and some scary stuff like "MAL", but all in all, like ExCath said, some of those folks were and are some of the finest I have ever known. And yes, I think there really was a difference between the pre-Martindale presidency, and the post Martindale presidency. I began to meet a number of 13th Corps grads and on up, and some (but more than should have been usual) of them were childish morons who really loved to be "lords over God's heritage. In fact, it was my being a clergyman that kept some of them from really messing with me. Once I moved to an area and didn't tell them that I was a clergy guy. I just wanted to "be a believer" for awhile. And as time went on, this BC punk began to dislike my independant ways. When I finally let it out of the bag to another believer that I was a clergy guy, this weasal was so shocked, but then began to suck up and apologize and he was just plain shameless. That wasn't too long before I got kicked out by LCM. And that punk actually tried to break my wife and my marriage up! I actually caught him at my home one day when I came home from work while my wife was chewing him out and kicking him out the door! It was beautiful. I just smiled at him and waved as he scuttled into his car and drove off. I didn't need to bark at him because "The Shotgun" (my wife's nickname) had already unloaded on him... Sorry for the de-rail folks, but yeah Scout Finch, I think your assessment was accurate. And say, has Boo Radley come out lately? :)-->

I remember the first time it was cleaned out there were a couple of sinks that the former students had ripped out of the walls from one of the dorms when they found out the College of Emporia was closing and they wouldn't be awarded their degrees. I think I remember that there was a refrigerator in there as well. That pond was disgusting... I never swam in it... just the thought makes me queasy.

For those who were never blessed to have been in the corps program, if you knew the people involved in these sto-ries and their personalities, you could "see it yet", so living & real ... Our last year in res was the 11th's 1st year, and because there were so maany of them, maany of us married couples had to share rooms with an 11th corps couple. We had bunk beds in these rooms in those days, retrieved from the river-bed dry pool in Allen gym (how many corps ever even stepped INSIDE Allen gym?? I'll bet some didn't even realize the gym was part of the Emporia campus. WHY didn't they ever fill it up with water and let us SWIM???!!!). Anyways, these bunk beds had frames of wrought iron, weighed 100 lbs apiece, with old wire springs for mattress support. Me & wifey had claimed bottom bunk, leaving the top to the newbie 11th couple. When the 11th corps couple arrived for the 1st day in res, they had the husband's parents come with them. PM #1: The expression on the parents' faces when they realized we were SHARING the same bedroom. PM #2: Come 'loving' time for the upper bunk couple, their every move made those iron springs spring into a loud squeaking, as of a rushing, mighty wind. I had to put a pillow over wifies face to muffle her laughter. PM #3: One late night, the upper bunk couple, rising up a great while before day, were in the middle of 'knowing' each other, and I had to spring a leak (common male term for urination). Well, as soon as I rose out of the lower bunk, lo and behold I see the gal riding trigger, paps 'a swayin' and butts a' rockin'. They either didn't see me or didn't care, as the hour of power kept on going. I am thankful to this day for the vee-sion God shewed me that night. PM #4: At Gunnison under the reign of TJ (not Tick Jr), after getting my lunch, I headed over to Simon's table. Noticing a few 11th corps sitting there already, I stepped up behind the one sitting next to Simon and barked sharply, "MOVE !!!!" (like some earthly truck driver). This was not unusual to Simon and me, as we would greet each other with a "Dammit, how the F@@K are you?" on campus, just to keep spiritually sharp. Well, at the end of the announcments after lunch, LCM gets on the horn and say's "Tom T, please meet with me and TJ in cabin 2 immediately.". So I thought maybe God was moving over to give me a 'spacial' place in heaven. Wrong. I got lamblasted. Some 11th corps ratted me out, saying I was a bully. I got a lecture from LCM (TJ only sitting there nodding in spiritual agreement) about because of my size, I had to go the extra mile to be gentle, as I might be intimidating to smaller people. I told him I was only JOKING, that I thought it was OBVIOUS I was joking. I suppose the humor of Simon & I was too great a blessing for some ...

God Hi All As we grow in love we learn to overlook our past and move on and that is why it blesses me to read stories of how we over came our past Because when one writes their story like the one Mark wrote with love it makes it easier for him to understand others shortcoming in life Now I write this to think all the ones that have put their lifes in the open like Mark and many other have Thank you Mark and I send thanks to all the others that have wrote their stories here with love with love Roy

Okay zix.... ............... just watch BTW... take a look at how much health care costs have risin ... lately... the last ten years have out-paced the previous 50 years. makes you go hhhmmmmmmmmm?????

"Really only saw one total a$$hole in the area -- Rico Magnelli was WoW in the area during his apprentice year" Can you support this statement?- I new Rico the year before as a WOW in CA. He had a GREAT heart and was fired up for God.

Long Gone, perhaps I was being too touchy last night. I'm sorry. But please don't go. I've asked my question of you two different ways, and you still haven't answered. I'm really interested in what you meant by "most." What shouldn't be included? I'm not asking to badger you. I'm asking because I value your opinion and want to hear the rest of it. Linda

I don't know, but it sounds more interesting than mbla.

Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be. Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Linda Z

Oh, and Cynic: I'm accustomed to the stilted manner in which you epxress yourself. Hey, if you don't want people to know what the heck you're saying because you're hellbent on sounding scholarly, have at it, but it makes for lousy communication outside the ivory tower. One question, though: You said, "I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated." What is "spirated," because I can't find it in any American English dictionary. Maybe you meant "inspired"? Linda Z

Coolwaters raised the most clearly stated, logical argument for permitting same-sex marriage I've yet seen in this thread: It's a legal contract. So why should anyone be denied the right (or privilege--either way) to enter into that legal contract? Denying one segment of the population this right/privilege certainly doesn't seem just or right to me. Zix, you're calling upon tradition to argue against homosexuals marrying? (Why do I picture you dancing around like the Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof? "TraDItion!" Some traditions are good; some can stand a tune-up, and I think this is one of them. Cynic, you're invoking the inerrancy of your denomination's take on the Bible to bolster your argument. I also hold the Scriptures in extremely high regard, but I am willing to acknowledge: (a) that my understanding of portions of the Bible could be incorrect, or (b) that over the centuries, maybe, just maybe, the men who chose what went into the Bible and what didn't, and how it all should be interpreted into English, might have been mistaken on some points, or they might have had their own agendas that crept in, whether intentionally or not. Tradition is no basis for such determinations, Zixar. Others have made that argument in this thread, and made it well. Traditions change as people's needs change, as society changes. (And NO, I'm not saying let's have a free-for-all and let everyone do as they like. I'm talking about permitting something that doesn't cause harm to anyone else.) Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? Excath: You did NOTHING to disrupt this thread. Cynic's just diverting attention from the flaws in his argument by calling your opinions/questions disruptive. Ignore him and ask/say what you want. laleo: Your argument that marriage affords women and children protection is good in terms of being a reason why marriage is beneficialfor heterosexuals. But I don't understand how extending the right to marry to people of the same gender would compromise that protection. Please explain. Linda Z [This message was edited by Linda Z on February 07, 2004 at 8:26.]

Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc. "It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice." Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition. "It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. " I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you........... ""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense. Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women. Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents." And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why????????? To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]

Now see...here's something I can "hear" and consider. Thanks, Long Gone! Your whole post is something that I can wrap my mind around and think about. What a breath of fresh air right now. :D--> ?????????????

Trefor, As it might concern an intelligent debate on issues, this thread -- through no doing of yours -- appears to be dead. Another day.

That's yours and mine.

Zixar, your examples of the RC church and the Armed Services are clear enough, but those are closed communities. Marriage is an institution that crosses all boundaries, cultures, religions, and for that matter, sexual orientations. I don't see how any one culture, or age, can claim the only true definition. Marriage is defined, like it or not, by many differing doctrines, and the only common denominator is voluntary commitment. We call it a vow, but it's a contractual commitment. Everything else marriage is depends upon what we believe. Suppose you attend the First Church of the Heterosexual Truth and Premarital Abstinance. Your fellow church members needn't consider a homosexual union legitimate, on spiritual grounds. On legal grounds, it only matters in limited circumstances, and they have no effect on your own definition of marriage. And the same goes for "Jim and Bob." My only concern is fairness. For instance, it's obvious to me that when they have the married-couples' three-legged race at the county fair, the gays will have a leg up, so to speak. In that case, the rules may need to be amended. Other than that I don't see a major problem.

cynic, first off, are you talking to me or garth about tref ? and if you want people to get a liking to your way of thinking, you should try to talk ?

Don't sweat it, Exie. I've noticed that he does that with everyone with whom he disagrees. Old Way habits dies hard. Danny

Or oppose it because of its lack of societal usefulness.

i thought we were talking about homosexuality relationships what the hell are you talking about ? give me a break ?

I do not wish to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

we send cynic back to the scriptures to search if these things were so ?

thank you ?

ohmygosh is that the best you can do ? can you talk like a person ? okay okay sorry i'll go read that again ?

If the consideration is merely economic, shouldn't would-be polygynists who could demonstrate sufficient fiscal capabilities have all the unions they might want and are able to support fully recognized as marriages by the states -- in the interest of equality and liberty?

maybe if you had too many spouses, the government would find it hard to deal with the social security ramifications i don't know ?

The Massachusetts law when written was intended for a man and a woman because at the time it was written it was inconceivable that a marriage would take place any other way. The Massachusetts Supreme Court absolutely knew this and instead of interpreting the law as it should have been interpreted, became the activist jurist body they were and "re-wrote" it to include their own political beliefs without changing a word of the language. It once was that I used to just tolerate homosexuals if they kept to themselves and did their own thing. I could have cared less. But now, I am the opposite. I have had enough. I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay civil unions. I am opposed to any more protection by the law based on sexual preference. I believe now in the right to discriminate against them and to practice it, because it is the right thing to do. I believe it must be now said they are either spiritually "off" or mentally ill. If it is due to a genetic flaw, then it is just like any other genetic flaw, such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, and the American medical and psychiatric communities must be compelled, and forced if necessary, by law, to find the problem and the cure. I believe in re-enacting and re-establishing every sodomy law on the books dealing with homosexuality. Jailing them won't do any good, but gives great ground to close down and eliminate every gay bar and gay sexual establishment in the country. I believe in breaking up every "gay" community in the country. We should punish any lawmaker or publically elected or appointed official that backs anything even remotely related to homosexual agendas. I have lost what tolerance I have had, and that wasn't much. My sympathy is gone. Anger has replaced it. Marked and Avoided

Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it. I started reading on the last page and am working my way back. But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing? See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys. In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom." ;)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

i must admit i am confused about this ?

Yes, there are. There are also people not past childbearing age, but "related" by marriage, with legitimate concerns about restrictions on marriage.

Long Gone: The partnership arrangements here are marriages in all but name. If there were similar proposals being made in the USA then I am sure the needs of most gay people would be satisfied. As they are not I have every reason to indicate my concern and to support my fellow gays who are US citizens. Bigotry is bigotry wherever it is. The same for inequality. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Garth: You're blurring the issue. I'm not saying anything about the sodomy laws. What I am saying is that there is nothing so particularly special about homosexuality that it demands any sort of special consideration whatsoever from the remainder of society.

How about, I wouldn't have had the fifty year old queer who tried to seduce me in his mobile home down in Louisiana when I was sixteen, and I had to commit assault to get away from him. If there were no homosexuals, that wouldn't have happened... So the answer would be: Society would lose "homosexual assaults on young boys if there were no homosexuals.

No, because AIDS is now transmitted primarily between heterosexuals in Africa, and a large percentage of transvestites are heterosexual. Any other answers?

Tom: What would society lose if there were no such thing as homosexuality? I'm not talking about eliminating homosexual individuals, I'm talking about what would we really lose if all homosexuals were heterosexual instead.

thanks, mpm ?

The legal aspect of marriage (as opposed to the religious aspect) has always been governed by the state since it is the state that protects and enforces the legal aspects of such a contract. If you've ever gotten divorced you know what I mean. But there is more to this than divorce. There is wealth and inheritance. When you die and your spouse inherits your money (or when you transfer money between you while alive) there are tax and other legal consequences that differ if it's your spouse than if it's your live-in significant other. If you are on life-support and they need next of kin to make a decision - a spouse is legally the next of kin. Not a person you may have been in a loving supportive relationship with for 20 years but never married. There is also the matter of employee benefits like health insurance, retirment etc. that accrues to a spouse but not a non-married lover. These are legal relationships hence the state's legal authority to define marriage. Aside from the moral issue that I don't think I (or anyone else) should dictate who gets to love another person - except the people involved, I think there is a societal benefit to encouraging long term loving relationships and the legal benefits that go with them. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is interracial. Interracial marriaged used to be illegal. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of two different faiths. Inter-faith marriage may not be sanctioned by certain churches and that's their priviledge but it doesn't affect the legal aspect of such a union. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of the same sex. The state is being very courageous in taking this stand as were states in the past to legalize interracial marriage, and non-religious marriage.

I concur CC... It must have been either 92 or 93. We got the boot and never attended ROA 94. I specifically remember this guy getting up there and barely getting a chance to finish his sentence about 'Keeping it simple' and Craigger the raving lunatic jumping down his throat. I felt like I was in residence again...ahhhhh such a nice feeling it was! --> NOT!!!!!!!!! 'til the next time...

Raf, I stand corrected. I was refering to it as the situation as he(LCM) percieved it not that it was something that needed to be handled at all. It's funny how intent doesn't always tranaslate well over the keyboard, sorry. Peace IMA

All right, out with it, Evan--- it was "no perception Paul" and "pablum Pyle", ifn' I 'members correctly.... all this, in a Biblical research and teaching ministry, the likes of which have not been seen since the uno Ce-antch-errryyy!!!!!!!! sheeesh --> --> --> :D--> [This message was edited by alfakat on December 20, 2003 at 0:06.] [This message was edited by alfakat on December 20, 2003 at 0:07.]

Oh geeze, I'll apologize for the sidetrack ahead of time...sorry. But VP, LCM, and company knew that the whole athletes thing was a humongous stretch, but VP in particular felt that it was ok to make the leap, because he was after all "the great teacher." He was fishing for ammo to back up his "claim," that the military terms were "athletic." When he didn't get it, he didn't change his teaching, he went forward with it anyway. And then LCM took it to new heights....or depths, depending oh how you look at it. --> Could it be that this "teaching" and the liberties taken with the scriptures set the stage for LCM's um, stranger teachings of the 90's? that aren't found anywhere in the bible?

Ex, :-P