Steve Lortz

It may well be that Lynn has been watching us all along! Isn't that him in the picture that appears at the top of some pages? You know the one. The one that says, "No gum to be stuck under tables! By order of management" :-D Love, Steve

A good study of the whole situation, not just perceived differences between Paul and James, is "Unity and Diversity in the New Testament" by James D.G. Dunn. Love, Steve

Cynic - The MM people include all the basic creeds, not because they believe them, but in order to not get kicked out of ANY potential recruiting ground on the basis of doctrinal differences. I don't consider MM a splinter of TWI. Its a rogue LGAT (large group awareness training) with a Christian veneer. There is at least one TWI splinter that has rationalized using trinitarian terminology (redefined to fit TWI doctrine where necessary) to sell their "parachurch" ministry in mainstream markets. MM put up with CES' "stand" on the trinity because their acceptance of CES was bringing in the dollars. CES put up with MM' "stand" on the trinity, because Momentus was the GREATEST THING SINCE THE NEW BIRTH, doncha know. Besides, if CES hung around with MM long enough, CES would be able to convert MM with CES' sheer brilliance. Love, Steve

The Invisible Dan - You hit the nail on the head. I could not have expressed it better. Love, Steve

oldies - At one time CES published "22 Principles" for interpreting the Bible. At least 3 of the principles contradict each other. When I pointed this out to them, they ignored the truth. Schoenheit did a teaching on evolution, and used the fact that it's built on a circular argument to discredit it. When I demonstrated to Schoenheit that dispensationalism ALSO is based on a circular argument, it didn't seem to bother him. TWI was not what it advertised itself to be. Wierwille was dishonest, and I don't see how that could have been anything other than deliberate. CES is not what it advertises itself to be. The CES leaders are dishonest. Is it deliberate? I don't think so. I just think their hearts have deceived them into believing their own hype. Love, Steve

Went with my brother and granddaughter to see "The Village" over the weekend. It would have made a good Twilight Zone episode (back in the '60s) It was okay. I liked their 19th century diction. It wasn't very scary though, and the plot twists were too transparent. Love, Steve

Jeff - It sure didn't take much turn around time for that one, did it. How come it took so long? And we KNOW that you're posting for Lynn THIS time, because that's the only way you could have gotten the text. If you read my emails to John, I told him that my communications regarding Momentus, etc., had served their purpose. In my last email I didn't discuss Momentus, or the truth that CES is building a religious empire, or any of that other stuff. I posed two questions, and TWO QUESTIONS ONLY: 1. Whether or not Lynn was surruptitiously posting through you, and 2. whether or not he wrote, and still held the sentiment that Wierwille would be proud of what he is doing. I told him I would post his answer, AND I DID. I posted what he wrote about your involvement, and I noted that he totally ignored the second question, which, if you read what Lynn told you to post, you will see he did. When I received the smarmy infomercial that Lynn wrote in reply, I decided to post the answers Lynn gave to my questions, and not the whole thing, because it is a blatant attempt to turn ME into his stalking-horse as well as YOU, sir! Well, the dishonesty is now in the open. Why didn't Lynn post this, instead of having YOU take the flak, Jeff, my boy? Spineless... spineless... spineless... Truly, Steve

oldies - I can identify with your position. It was one I held myself for a long, long time. What finally convinced me was comparing what Wierwille wrote in PFAL with what's actually written in the Bible, and with what bona fide scholars have found out about how the Word actually WAS known and taught in the first century. I think Wierwille larded a lot of truth into his cover story, and God worked with people who believed those truths. That's why so many people, myself included, DID get blessed. But those truths were part of the cover story, not part of Wierwille's heart. The true goal of "Word (PFAL - Wierwille's plagiarized rehashings) Over the World" was to funnel ever increasing amounts of money into the treasury. Wierwille didn't even share this stuff with the yes-men he kept around himself. That's why ALL the leaders crapped out in '86-'87. That's why TWI tanked. When I was involved with TWI, my intentions were good. When I found out about the adultery ('87), I left. When I was involved with CES, my intentions were good, and I believe everyone else's, including the leaders, were good too. Then Momentus came along. It was like a hurricane. Piecing together how and why that happened has taken a long time. It was because of what satori calls the DNA. People still believe they are pursuing the "movement of God's Word Over the World". Unfortunately, they're doing it the only way they know how, by unwittingly applying the techniques of building a religious empire. Love, Steve

Cults come in all sizes and shapes. You can't judge a cult by its cover. The one feature all cults hold in common is that their leaders have a double agenda. There is an open agenda, which is used to attract and pump up the followers. Then there is the leaders' hidden agenda, which is radically different from the open agenda. The followers think they are pursuing, and are committed to the open agenda. The open agenda of TWI was to "move the Word over the world" by establishing twig fellowship in every community on the face of the earth. The hidden agenda was to build a religious empire with Wierwille as the emperor. The classical Greeks, as they did with so many other aspects of our culture, were the first to systematize imperialism. Here's how they did it. A mother-city, say Athens or Corinth, would send a group of colonists out somewhere where there was no city, say Sicily or southern Italy or the shores of the Black Sea. The mother city would support the colony until it became established as a city on its own. Then, after it was making money, the colony would send tribute back to the mother-city. That's one of the prime methods Athens used to build its empire, which resulted in the Golden Age of Greece. TWI was a religious empire. WOW Ambassadors (colonists) would be sent out to establish blue-form twigs where there were none before (colonies). Once the colonies were established, they sent tribute back to HQ in the form of the abundant sharing. All this was done to enhance the power and wealth of VP Wierwille and his cronies. I don't think the leaders of CES have evil intentions of becoming emperors themselves, but I DO believe they were deceived into believing the open aganda was real, just like the rest of us. The "Word" (PFAL) was not the Bible as it was known and taught in the first century. It was, and is, a pastiche of plagiarism, poorly swiped from others and cobbled together by a gifted confidence man. To the extent that the leaders of CES believe what we were taught in PFAL is "the Word as it has not been known since the first century", and to the extent that they believe the practices of TWI were godly devices, they continue to pursue the dead Wierwille's goal of building a religious empire. And the leaders of CES are clueless that's what they're doing... because they are STILL fooled into believing that TWI's open agenda was real. Love, Steve

Maybe The Invisible Dan could stand in for Sue Storm when she's using her super-power :-D Love, Steve

In my last email TO Lynn, I posed the following questions: 1. Jeff headed his thread, "A letter from John Lynn - to you!" Some people were skeptical, because it seemed pretty much like a form letter. Was Jeff accurate? Did he post it on your behest, or was he operating on his own hook? Was it really a letter from you to US? 2. One sentence in the letter stirred quite a bit of controversy. Toward the end you (apparently) wrote, "In closing let me say that I honestly believe that Dr. Wierwille would be proud of what we are doing." Did you really write that, John? If so, is it still your sentiment that if he were alive, Wierwille would be proud of what you are doing? I received a reply from Lynn yesterday. Regarding the first question he wrote, "...Jeff has carte blanche to post whatever he wants, and I'm still not sure exactly what he has put out lately..." Lynn ignored the second question altogether, writing nothing at all in response to it. Love, Steve

Jeff's intial post that started this thread smacks of dishonesty. One possibility is that Jeff posted John's letter without John's knowledge. If that were the case, then Jeff would be dishonestly misrepresenting John. One possibility is that John had Jeff post the letter. If that were the case, then John would be dishonestly having Jeff "carry his water" for him. As WordWolf pointed out, Jeff hasn't answered our questions. I have no regrets about going to the horse's mouth, so this shadow of dishonestly can be lifted. Love, Steve

Ioan Gruffudd was also Horatio Hornblower. Love, Steve

Paw - I still think it would be a good idea to set up an "About CES" forum, just like "About the Way". That way, John could discuss his involvement with TWI on "About the Way" and his CES involvement on "About CES". On all the other forums, he could just be himself. It might make some of his transition easier if people can discuss (and vent) on specific issues at specific places, and just accept him everywhere else. Love, Steve P.S. - If I know John, I'm sure he'll have some doozies for the humor forum :-)

WordWolf - You wrote, "Me, I'd prefer to just ask JAL." I already did. Watch out, that doesn't set well with some people around here. Love, Steve

Hey, notinKansasanymore, ex10, et al., - What did I do that was dishonest? I told John Lynn in my first email that it was a communication test because Jeff had been posting here in John's name. I told JAL upfront that I intended this communication to be public. I have had YEARS of direct contact with JAL. We have had many, many conversations. Enough for me to have a rough idea of how to get his attention, and how to be put on the burner farthest back. I didn't say anything that I haven't said to his face. I had to bring up the Momentus thing, because that was the issue we parted over, and those WERE his last words to me. In his first email to me, he let me know where he stands. In my second email to him, I let him know where I still stand. After all that was out of the way, I could get to the heart of the matter, which is, was Jeff really posting at John's request? and, does he really think Wierwille would approve of what he's doing? Aren't those the questions we've been debating behind John's back? If I had emailed John and NOT let him know that I was going to make his response or lack of response public, would you expect me to "wait by the phone" night after night wringing my hands over whether or not he would get back to me? Or would you rather I just came back here and told everybody John hadn't answered, without letting him know that was what I was doing. Jeff and others opened up this can of worms when they claimed John would answer his emails. How can you fault me for putting their words to the test? After our involvement with TWI, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that we can't take MEN's words and "good intentions" for granted. John has put himself forward as a leader, and as far as I'm concerned, by doing so, he opened himself up to a double dose of accountability. I can see where it would be inappropriate for me to treat a private person the way I've treated John. I haven't treated any private person that way, and wouldn't. BUT, if John Lynn wants to be a LEADER, he is no longer a private person in many important respects. I spent time as a petty officer in the submarine service. We were trained in the principles of ACTUAL leadership, not TWI's principles of being a yes-man. When you accept a position of leadership, you accept responsibilty and accountability. When you are a genuine follower, you hold your leader's feet to the fire, to hold him responsible and to make him account. If you don't, things get dangerous. I could tell some sea stories. Things got dangerous at TWI because we didn't have the gumption to hold its leaders accountable. Things got dangerous at CES (remember, Momentus IS psychologically damgerous) as John, John and Mark gradually insulated themselves from accountability. I, for one, am not going to make the SAME MISTAKE three times in a row. I am holding John accountable. If that seems wrong to you, then there are still some cobwebs of waybrain you need to sweep from your hearts. Love, Steve

Chuck - There IS part of your question I can answer. You asked if the co-ordinators consider that some people might come into the course to make trouble. They have actually planned for it. It's part of the script. In the old days, before military bootcamps became PC, it was the practice for the drill instructor, on the very first day, to pick out the biggest, toughest, meanest recruit, the one with the baddest attitude, and to beat the crap out of him in front of the whole company. The purpose was to INTIMIDATE all the boots. Before a Momentus training started, the team would get together and figure out which trainee was most likely to cause trouble. That trainee became a marked person. In the first afternoon of the Momentus training, the trainers would find some excuse to beat the verbal snot out of that person, BEFORE he could start any trouble. The purpose was to INTIMIDATE all the trainees. Also, I never saw any fist-fights break out in our training, but I wouldn't have been surprized if it had happened. Plenty of people stood nose-to-nose, red-faced with their neck veins sticking out, shouting at each other, including married couples. Love, Steve

notinKansasanymore - Your experience has been different from mine. I applaud your willingness to stand up and say what you think. From session one of PFAL we were drilled to sit back in passive silence and accept whatever these guys say. A number of years ago, I decided I'm NOT going to sit back in passive silence, anymore. I applaud your similar decision. As far as "backing into a corner" goes, these guys make their living by playing hardball in intellectual discourse. If they don't like it because I play hardball back, they're in the wrong business. Love, Steve

Thank you, Paw! Love, Steve

Chuck - I don't understand what exactly your question is. Could you please restate it in other words? Thanks! Love, Steve

notinKansasanymore and ex10 - If you reread my first email to John, you will notice I told him the purpose of the message was a communication check, and that I intended to make his response or lack of response public. One thing I've learned with ALL of these guys (ALL ex-Way leaders I've had contact with, not just CES) is that you just can't trust them to say the same things in public as they say in private. That may seem grossly unfair and ungentlemanly, but its the truth. The Word says we're to be harmless as doves, but it also says we're to be wise as serpents. I've found it wisest to keep ALL communications with these guys public. You will also notice that John was somehow nonplussed that my letter was not an attempt on my part to reconcile myself to him. He makes an unwarrented assumption, that he is automatically right, and everyone he's driven away should come back to him. He said I still seemed to have the "same agenda" I had seven years ago. My agenda was not to argue Momentus, but to see if he would answer my email, which he did, to his credit. The issue of Momentus had to be raised, because that was the issue on which we parted. Those WERE his last words to me, prior to his email. Now we both know where each other stands, and we can procede to the heart of the matter at hand, which is, did he tell Jeff to post that old form letter or did Jeff do it on his own? and, does John really think Wierwille would be proud of what he is doing? Instead of sitting here talking about John behind his back, I took the conversation TO him and invited him to express himself. Why do you find that so terrible? I don't understand your position. Love, Steve P.S. - I ACTUALLY DID get through to him personally, something that Jeff apparently cannot do.

I just sent the following e-mail to JAL,

I don't know what CES' current motto is, but it used to be "Speaking the Truth in Love". In practice it worked out to, "It must be true, WE said it. It must be loving, WE did it." Love, Steve

Welcome back, Refiner! Love, Steve

A few days ago, I sent the following email to John Lynn, Today, I heard back from him, To which I replyed, There you have it. Love, Steve