Tom

From the post you are supposed to be addressing: "Am I saying that everyone setting Wierwille in our midst and ready to throw stones at him are present day scribes and Pharisees 'tempting' the Lord's brethren, 'that they might have to accuse' them? No, we're not talking about the same situations here." Again, "...we're not talking about the same situations here." As I said, "I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal." So what now? You can't find anything, so you make up stuff that's the direct opposite of what I've said? I missed that one in there, Rascal. You're making stuff up again. Wierwille's adultery & fornication was despicable. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact when I mentioned (also quoted from the post in question) "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'," I immediately followed it with the words "Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek" so that people would realize I do NOT condone that attitude. "Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon. Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings. Just because Wierwille used them as cover and rationalization for sin doesn't mean they are wrong. People use the liberty that God called us to as an occasion to the flesh; that doesn't make the liberty a lie. Wierwille's mindset I wouldn't begin to pretend to understand. I never could, & I wouldn't want to try to fathom the nastiness that was there. A poor guy who simply erred is another figment of your imagination as is the a$$ hole accusation.

For someone who prefers civility in discourse, that's an unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth. You've got me down, Wordwolf; no use talking about it. I don't think it much matters to the discussion, but I think the section you copied from Rom. 2 is written about Jews & Gentiles, primarily Jews. I also find it hard to believe that Samson was out of fellowship, yet "He still had the strength" to take the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and go away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carry them up to the top of a hill. And why? Was the sex that great? These guys were hiding quietly waiting for him to kill him. How did he know they were there? Okay, maybe he came upon them & grabbed the gate before they could jump him. But when he broke his committment to God with Delilah, he lost his strength immediately and absolutely, & when he used his strength, he was energized in the service of the true God. I don't think he was naturally strong enough to carry gates to the cities around, but hey, I could be wrong. Tom

"Always" is a strong term. Matthew 5:27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. I don't think Jesus would have looked upon Abraham as committing adultery, yet his definition of adultery could have been committed in the heart without any physical adultery even happening. That's something like what I was trying to communicate about fornication and marrieds taking c/o each other.

I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal. I apologize if I'm wrong. I agree with your above statement.

And so what then, I'm missing out on all the fun because I can't handle the freedom I guess is what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm just repeating you because that's really a strange notion to me. I'm not one to do that. I've been sort of skirting the limits of adhesion all my life in everything I was ever involved in both good & bad. I'm not nearly as sure of what I believe on this matter as Wordwolf seems to think I am. Maybe I'll try to address that doctrinally later - or not. But I don't think that sex is bad, & I don't think that having it outside of marriage makes it so necessarily. I also believe that sexual promiscuity has taken a sad toll on people in our country medically, emotionally, spiritually. Again, I'm just trying to talk here. I can't stop people from taking what I'm saying as some sort of "Thus saith the Lord" doctrinal stance, but that's not the way I intend it. I usually don't go around quoting scripture unless I'm pretty sure of its meaning & application, but, in some of these instances, I'm not so sure. I do think there is a spiritual fornication and adultery and a physical, and that there is a relationship. I'm not in favor of orgies. I think the spirituality of orgies goes back to the OT orgies that happened when Israel went "up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot." I believe that's spiritual adultery, that people can commit it, that they did then, & they do now. It is a given that sex was involved. Obviously, physical adultery may very well be involved, but not necessarily. For the record, I've never had sex outside of marriage when I was married - either marriage. I don't look at it like I'm missing out on fun; although, I can see where someone might take what I'm saying that way. I don't think sex outside of marriage, physical fornication, is always spiritual fornication. I don't think that Abraham (the pick for which I received 20 points) was fornicating, nor Jacob, nor the others who did the same. I don't even think that Solomon with all his wives was spiritually fornicating until they got him to open up to their gods - at least not the type of fornicating that Jesus gave as the only reason for divorce. THAT kind of fornication also involves spiritual fornication, thereby bringing hardness of heart into the relationship - the reason Moses allowed divorce according to that same Jesus in the same discourse. To avoid fornication married people are supposed to take care of each other. I don't think (again, I don't know for sure) that's referring to physical fornication - although it's good advice in that regard too. Plenty of married couples don't have sex for way longer than "with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again" without one or the other going out to physically fornicate. But I think it is pretty hard to find a marriage where they don't take care of each other that doesn't have some kind of god making its way into the relationship, setting itself up as an idol in the heart where the true God ought to be, hardening the heart. In many ways, viewing some of the usages of adultery and fornication as spiritual makes it harder to live by rather than easier. It's not an excuse to sin; although, it can be used that way & is many times - usually, I should say. I didn't bring all this up as an excuse for my sinful fun which I'm not having. I hope that helps to clarify the way I think whether or not I'm right or wrong about it. Amen.

I agree with all that, Rascal. It still doesn't mean that he didn't believe it himself. I think he did. Remember that he taught us that public enemy number one believes he was in the right. He also taught us that sincerity is no guarantee for truth and that it is the sincere ones that fool us. I believe that's what happened. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I know there are people who were around at the same time that I was who believe that he consiously made up his doctrine to cover his tracks knowing full well that he was in the wrong. I think he believed his lies - his doctrinal ones I mean.

As ChattyKathy said, "The world populated at a certain point by way of incest." I would suppose at that point that there wasn't anything wrong with it. But that's not the same as what you're referring to as childhood incest. It is iniquity according to Leviticus. Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. Leviticus 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Leviticus 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. Leviticus 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Leviticus 20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. I'm in total agreement, Abigail. I know people are saying that I'm defending Wierwille, & I figured they would, but please remember that I said I wasn't, & I'm not.

Oops, sorry about that mistake. I don't recall ever experiencing that attitude anywhere I was, but I don't doubt that it existed in places - those places where extramarital sex was freely practiced, you know, as a "doctrinal" thing. But Wierwille, nor anyone else, ever taught that when I was around that I remember. Sometimes he taught a lot of things in a short time that were so bizarre to my way of thinking that I might have just missed it. I do remember hearing that he told Craig that he needed loosen up sexually. As I remember hearing it, VP told him that he would never be able to fully realize his potential ability to minister to women unless he did loosen up with them in that area. I suppose the implication may be made that the "principle" holds for others also, but I never was around anyone who tried to push the notion...umm, again, that I was aware of. People (like me) can be pretty naive or just unaware.

Thanks Excie. About the betrayal - yeah, I can see that. I wasn't taken advantage of like you were, but I understand insofar as he betrayed all of us. Sold us on the Word & sold us out. It is the hardest pill to swallow. I can't imagine it for you.

Okay, there is the worship Wierwille faction that wants to preserve his image in worship-worthiness. I didn't take that into consideration. However, I do think that there are many who neither say "they think vpw's comments were appropriate," nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling. That was an awefully wide continuum that I gave in my post, the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." One need not have HEARD Wierwille's secret sex doctrine to sit somewhere on that continuum. I believe the answer was given that people wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously the Corps couldn't. Obviously neither Wierwille nor Martindale handled it - or people wouldn't be wishing them dead (or just feeling that way). 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 ¶Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context. Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working. Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life. Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word. Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff. "A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of- but that's a long way from 'God's ok with it.'" Actually, those two places are not that far apart. I believe what Wierwille taught us about practical error practiced long enough turning into doctrinal error. It is the nature of the human mind to rationalize its actions. That's why I believe that Wierwille really believed what he taught. And people believed him. And many fall somewhere on the continuum who never heard him. Know anyone who figures that Clinton got a raw deal because he was president & his enemies capitalized on his misfortune in being caught at what they figure is really okay as in, "C'mon, the guy got a bj - more power to him. His marraige probably sucks; leave the guy alone?" Apparently Abraham, the father of believing, "handled" more than his wife - or looking at Lebanon & Israel, maybe he didn't. Apparently Samson "handled" lying with a woman all night & was still in fellowship with the true God to the point that he tore off the gate to the city on the way out leaving the enemy who was lying in wait to kill him staring with their mouths open. "is someone here really thinking?" I think so. People are thinking all kinds of things (that was my point) + the guilt of those who did the deed & change their guilt into anger + the Wierwille worhippers (if you are right which I don't doubt). It all figures in.

Well, I'm not sure (maybe I should read through your posts again) what you're trying to accomplish by starting this thread - I'm guessing that you're trying to know someone more personally who gives 1st hand testimony? I shared what I did about my daughter (which I don't have) just to get the point across that I don't condone what VP did. I don't need my daughter's testimony. I guess I could say that I know Excie personally, but insofar as I knew her, I didn't know her testimony until I read it here. But again, I don't need her testimony any more than I need my daughter's. Having been at HQ the 1st year of the 5th Corps, I would be surprised if I found out that VP DIDN'T have sex outside of his marriage. I suppose there are those who were in attendance who never thought he did, but there were an awful lot of us who tried to "handle" the freedom he told us about. I don't think too many of us were under the impression VP thought we "handled" it well. We thought he did - at least to the point things weren't blowing up around him at the time. Maye it wasw all a figment of our imaginations. As I said, a lot of people never suspected anything I suppose.

I understand. It's a conundrum.

Been a while, but this has been on my mind since I read it. I'm writing something & whenever something pops up that says to me "THIS should be included," I make a mental note & rarely let it go unwritten - at least as a note. This should be included, so I might as well start by writing about it here. It has to do with recognizing SIT. Some of you may remember the song that Claudette used to sing that had the refrain (I think the original name might have been changed), "You've been forgiven," picture Claudette belting that out - it would shake all your defenses out on the spot. The song was originally written by Sammy P*uyn. Some of you may remember him from NY. If anyone knows how I can contact him, please let me know. A few of us early Long Island believers witnessed to Sammy. He had an honest heart that was seeking & adamantly wouldn't accept anything that didn't smack him as genuine in every way. After he started coming around to the Word, he asked me to show him how to speak in tongues. I had never done that with anyone before at that point, &, as I thought about it, I naturally went to how I came to do it - via the 1st 5 chapters of the holy spirit book - because I was too uptight to attempt it for the 1st time before everyone in PFAL. I asked Sammy if he had read the holy spirit book. He said no. I told him to read it - that how to do it was in there, especially the 5th chapter, "How to Speak in Tongues" (if memory serves), but that he should read all the 1st 5 chapters. Then, if he wasn't already speaking in tongues - which I expected he would be - I would take him the rest of the way. Later, we were on the way to the 1st Rock of Ages (in Mark Gluckin's van if memory serves), when Sammy asked me again if I would show him how to speak in tongues. I asked him if he had read the 1st 5 chapters of the holy spirit book, & he said no. Again, I told him blah, blah, blah (read the above paragraph), & if he hadn't spoken in tongues by then, I would then take him the rest of the way. Fast forward (we've just arrived at HQ - the 1st time for all of us - for the Rock '71). I get out of the van with Sammy, & we're walking onto a place just to the left of where the 1st Rock was held - later blocked off by a fence & port-a-potties. Now that's probably significant, but, at the time, there was no fence & I don't remember any port-a-potties, & I was EXCITED. I was walking onto holy ground. And guess what, Sammy askes me if I will show him how to speak in tongues. Around & around we go, I'm thinking, so I ask him if he's read the 1st 5 chapters of the holy spirit book, & he says YES! Uh, oh, now what - I've never lead anyone into speaking in tongues? What to do, what to do? I look around me thinking there must be some better place or time to do this, but I'm without excuse - there can be no better place - I'm next door to the grounds of heaven about to participate in the 1st Rock of Ages (I have no idea what that is, but there can be no better time & place). But what to do? Ah, the directions - chapter 5, that's what I'll do. So I go over the directions with Sammy - it's not your mind giving you the words, breathe in - all that. Then we sit on the grass, cross our legs, & I'm inspired to actually do this along with Sammy, so we hold hands (it's okay: it's almost the late 60's), breathe, I count to three, & start speaking in tongues. I can hear Sammy freakin' moaning, trying, God he sounds like he is in dire straights, he starts to immitate me - I stop it. We try again - same results - bad. I tell Sammy, okay, look SIT is perfect prayer, PRAYER. Stop thinking about yourself; think about me, about how your prayer is blessing me. We start the countdown for the 3rd time. 123, I start speaking in tongues, Sammy starts moaning, I feel/perceive this like electrical charge building up between me & heaven. Sammy starts imitating me again. The electrical charge builds in strength, building, building - I can't say it hurts, it doesn't, but it's really getting powerful. Bamb, Sammy comes out with his own tongue; the power charge from heaven into me explodes out of my belly & into Sammy's. Sammy is unaware of any of this. The 2nd time I lead someone into speaking in tongues the same thing happened - very impressive, but not quite as strong. I figured no problem - I got the message that they really were speaking in tongues. The 3rd time I lead someone into speaking in tongues - it still happened, but it was barely perceptable. I wondered what the heck was going on, but again - I got the message; they were speaking in tongues. That's all I needed to know. The 4th time, I was teaching in Sammy's home. While I was teaching, God showed me that there was someone listening that wanted to speak in tongues. After the teaching, I asked him if he wanted to speak in tongues - you know, I knew that he did, but so what do you say? Anyway, God was right; he definitely wanted to know how to speak in tongues, so I invited him into another room to teach him how. It was easy; he spoke in tongues. But there was no power charge. I was ....ed, "Why was there no power charge," I complained to God. I KNOW that he spoke in tongues, &, I realized, in that instant, that I didn't NEED the power charge phenomenon anymore - because I did know. Well, I knew with Sammy, but now I was familiar enough with the perception to warrant the discontinuance of the phenomenon of the charge. I didn't only know; I knew that I knew - sorry for the Wierwillism. Not the end all & be all of doctrine, but thanks for the door of utterance your observation offered, Dancing. It really is something to get off on. Thanks again, Tom

Abi, I'd say if it's hitting you completely wrong maybe your perception is off, & it would be good to take a step back, & later take another look at it. Maybe share with a trusted friend (who also frequents the spot) what your perception is & see what their take is on it. Maybe if you see it from their point of view, it won't seem completely wrong anymore. Careful though, maybe it is wrong, & your perceptions are right. Big help, huh?

QUOTE(Dot Matrix @ Aug 3 2006, 06:00 PM) To the oringinal post I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.” If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it. And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you. My first thought upon reading Lifted Up's post was that was simply NOT what Dot said. But, after reading the post a couple of more times, there's a point there worth taking. This is not exactly an open forum. Of course, to start with, the openess of the thread is qualified by the original question (Is there any proof of VP's adultery?). But, after that, as Linda Z asks, who draws the lines as to what is acceptable and what is not? The question is asked from perspectives very different from (perhaps unacceptable to) Linda's intended line of thought, but it is the same question. All kinds of lines that people have drawn for themselves and for others are coming out here. That's only natural; the subject is, after all, proof that VP stepped over a line. I wonder if we aren't all dancing around the proverbial elephant in the living room here. I realize that there are people here who think that they have very legitimate causes for righteous anger. Please let me state up front that I'm not about disagreeing with any of you. If it were my daughter (that I don't have), & I was there with a knife in my hand, it wouldn't take any deep thought before I'd make his teeny weenie teenier. But if I can just TALK for a while - about the elephant - without everyone taking sides, pulling out their knives, & castrating each other... Why is all the wrangling going on here? Now, now - go easy. I'm not implying that there is no reason or cause worth wrangling about. I'm asking people to think about why there is so much static between people here on this thread. Some of you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, everyone agrees with you; THAT'S causing no static. Others think that you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, others are not so sure = static. Still others are conflicted yet about what happened (understandably so) and still have all kinds of internal static going on. Sharing here, where there are so many differing opinions about where lines should be drawn can both help bring resolution and static. Oh, right - the elephant (I notice I'm also dancing around it). Why is all the wrangling going on? Because we're talking about SEX? Well, maybe partially; sex can be very personally intense, but hopefully we've all had sex without wrangling at some point in our lives, so that can't be the whole answer. Because we're talking about ADULTERY? Well, now THAT could be a very touchy subject. I could coolly calculate ending someone's life for that. I wouldn't get all raucous about it, but that's just me. But consider Jesus and the "woman taken in adultery...in the very act." Now THAT'S PROOF! But who was making the big to do about it? Not Jesus. Certainly not the woman. The scribes and Pharisees. Am I saying that everyone setting Wierwille in our midst and ready to throw stones at him are present day scribes and Pharisees "tempting" the Lord's brethren, "that they might have to accuse" them? No, we're not talking about the same situations here. But we're talking about situations that have elements in common. I'm just trying to bring up factors that might; & therefore, I figure do, enter in. Because we're talking about RAPE? No people lining up to defend rapists? Especially child molestors - not very popular, even in prisons. So, we've got a lot of people, each drawing a lot of lines, many of whom are not quite sure where to draw their lines. I spent the wee hours of the morning in an RV (I think it was at the infamous 17th Corps week) with a Corps sister. TALKING, okay? But what if we weren't just talking? Would that have been over the line? What if we were in love? What if we were engaged? Anyway, we were talking about adultery, & she shared with me that LCM had come to her area, & while he was there, they had done the deed. He didn't force her or coerce her in any way. She didn't feel taken advantage of. It was "good." I doubt seriously that she feels any more traumatized by it today than she did then. I suspect that she certainly wasn't/isn't the only one who feels that way; although, I doubt seriously that they would post on this thread - the lines being drawn the way they are. Okay, the elephant - I suspect that one of the reasons why there is so much wrangling is because people are not sure where they sit on the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek. I'm not about defending Wierwille; I'm asking how many of us don't believe that there is some credence to what he taught about sex? Bliss was honest enough to talk about the anger principle with regard to candy. How many of us haven't dipped into the sweet stuff? Honestly, I have to put my stone down. Not only that, but many of us are still conflicted about whether we should feel guilty about it or not. How many of us, I wonder, have had sex with someone, perhaps even when one was married, during a time when your soul was a desert as far as sex was concerned - a time that had a lasting beneficial effect for that time, perhaps even throughout your entire life? Every good and perfect gift comes from above, so where did that come from? Hey, look; I'm just trying to talk. Put your stones down. Why is it okay for Excie to think about about the "free love" that was around in the day without remorse or emotional turmoil, but Wierwille should die (again, I guess:)). Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of good reasons. All I'm saying is that these are considerations - unresolved considerations - in the minds of people. Maybe your considerations lie somewhere else on the continuum. Hey, maybe you don't have any unresolved considerations on sex that lie anywhere on that continuum - more power to you. All I'm saying is that people do. The situation was presented to the WC that people have needs that can't be satisfied by marriage tomorrow or the next day or the next, and the God who promises to meet all our needs can do so without complication for an honest heart that asks. My first time was like that. It was wonderful, conditioned my appeciation of sex for the rest of my life - thank you. I'd do it again in a heart beat in the same situation. But the situation is different for me today. I'm okay, today - I decided that being the husband of one wife was satisfying and a full time occupation. Call me one of those who can't "handle" the freedom. I really don't care; I call it a good and perfect gift coming down from the Father of lights. Again, I'm not trying to absolve or defend Wierwille. I'm just trying to obviate some considerations that I think some people have that are fostering wrangling - but really trying to help mitigate some anger & resolve some guilt for people. Go easy on each other. Tom

"may he?" That's one "may" that's not a maybe. Rotting he is. Why don't I think that comforts you, Ex?

Ha, that's why Wierwille yelled so loudly, "It's the Word, the Word, & nothing but the Word!" Because it wasn't nothing but the Word. Remember VP saying that if a man's words are from the Lord, he doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" because people will know if it's the Word of the Lord? Is yelling "It's the Word" any different? He said when people come up to him & say "Thus saith the Lord," he takes a step back to see if they have spiritual halitosis, & it's from the wrong lord. That's a lesson we should have learned where HE was concerned. But see, the technique works, so we didn't.

I never thought about it with regard to TWI, but it's been my experience since leaving TWI out in the workworld that the more an organization yells about something - like "safety on the job" for example - the more you can bet that there is systematic breaking of safety rules in the organization (supported and expected by the higher ups). It has nothing to do with wanting safe practices to exist in the workforce & everything to do with the organization covering themselves against liability for illegal practices they expect and desire their employees to do - corners cut which get work done in less time thereby increasing profit. Remember the "illicit" sex was supposed to be for the inner circles of people - those who could "handle" the freedom we have in Christ. It was never supposed to be revealed to the "rest" of the ... you know, the household, but not THE household.

I remember VP announcing/teaching that the purpose of the WC was NOT to train those called to gift ministries, but was to train twig coordinators. I remember it the same year, 1975. Or was it 1974? Anyway, it was the ministry 1974/75 year as TWI reckoned years. But I remember it as being taught at a 10:30 fellowship at HQ. It was a bit of a shocker, a "shrink," if you will. It wasn't announced as a change of any sort. VP said nothing indicating that this was a change in TWI policy. Actually, I believe that he broached the subject as one who was correcting a misunderstanding among us egotistical little WC ....s who were pompous enough to believe erroneously that we had gift ministries. Blame the people again. TWI isn't always right, but they're never wrong. It was definitely, IMO, a change in TWI's stance concerning TWC. Considering the high proportion of WC who had already been successful twig, branch, & limb coordinators who were in attendance that year, the program, at that point, seemed to be promoting a step backwards to me. I wonder if VP & Co, didn't already see the writing on the wall that despite the increasing numbers of followers still joining, the phenominal promise of the early 70's wasn't going to be realized. CA, NY, & KS had effectively been neutered compared to the powerful organism they were before VP, a few short years before, clamped his controlling WC, WOW, Centralized ABS, Way Tree, Inc. hand on them. Perhaps VP realized he was going to need more grunts and fewer leaders than projections had indicated before he screwed it up. Classic CYA move on TWI's part. I'll bet money on it. And give odds. Tom

I've been thinking 'bout our fortune, And I've decided that we're really not to blame, For the love that's deep inside us now Is still the same. Moody Blues - The Story in Your Eyes

I know Wierwille isn't too many people's favorite bible scholar around here, but I remember him saying that Jesus Christ IS the Sabbath; stay in Christ, & you ARE observing the Sabbath. Like so many other things, the OT Sabbath (besides it being a good idea to rest once every seven days & set it aside for God) was a form of the rest that Jesus Christ gives us. It wasn't just something he said; he had some documentation from the Word that I don't remember - anybody? Hebrews? Ah, here you go: Hebrews 3:11 As I swore in my wrath, ‘They will not enter into my rest.’” 12 Beware, brothers, lest perhaps there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God; 13 but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called “today;” lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm to the end: 15 while it is said, “Today if you will hear his voice, Don't harden your hearts, as in the rebellion.” 16 For who, when they heard, rebelled? No, didn't all those who came out of Egypt by Moses? 17 With whom was he displeased forty years? Wasn't it with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 To whom did he swear that they wouldn't enter into his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 We see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief. Hebrews 4:1 Let us fear therefore, lest perhaps a promise being left of entering into his rest, anyone of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, even as they also did, but the word they heard didn't profit them, because it wasn't mixed with faith by those who heard. 3 For we who have believed do enter into that rest, even as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, they will not enter into my rest;” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has said this somewhere about the seventh day, “God rested on the seventh day from all his works;” 5 and in this place again, “They will not enter into my rest.” 6 Seeing therefore it remains that some should enter therein, and they to whom the good news was before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience, 7 he again defines a certain day, today, saying through David so long a time afterward (just as has been said), “Today if you will hear his voice, Don't harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered into his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his.11 Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 There is no creature that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold tightly to our confession. 15 For we don't have a high priest who can't be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. Everyday is the Sabbath for those who have rested from their own works as God did from his. Enter in to the rest of the Sabbath for we don't have a high priest who can't be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. Resting, Tom

As far as I gather, there are laws & laws. The natural laws (laws of physics, laws of relativity mentioned by Abi), and the laws men, and the laws of God. Laws of men...ah, well - I don't feel like taking about them at the moment. Actually, as far as I understand it, the OT laws of God are spiritual laws, but are based on the rudimentary elements of the creation also. The NT calls those elements weak and beggarly. They will pass, & they don't make anyone perfect. Now to me they seem mighty, but the NT tells us not to be in bondage to them, but to seek those things which are of the law of the life in Christ which are based on a more sure foundation that will not pass.

I think it is all a matter of what you worship, really.

As I said, "I think that "Christianity," for the most part, has lost the natural realm to the Adversary by default." If one can determine the vocabulary, he will win the argument. Christians dub the natural realm, that God says is very good, evil; the Adversary is free to define the realm, developing doctrines of devils about the realm through which his forces gain entre to the minds, & so the lives, of people. THAT definition becomes the cultural referent from which books on ESP, movies about Dracula, etc. derive material that influences people. And around and around she goes. Nothing wrong with the elements themselves - well, actually their foundations ARE out of course. But they still have the fingerprint of the Creator on them - that is to say, they are freakin' awesome - and I intend to enjoy them as being from the hand of God, doctrines of devils notwithstanding. Zoe, life in all its forms, is the promise. Zoe, Tom

One of the problems I had with the Word when I first came to fellowship was in I John where we are told to love not the world. I went to one of the believers and said as much & told her that I loved nature, thought it was created by God, & couldn't see hating it. She responded that she believed that was not talking about God's creation, but about the systems of the world. Later, I learned from various places in the Word that she was correct. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. It is not the creation we wrestle against, but the rulers of the darkness of it. 1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. There is nothing wrong with the rudimentary elements of the world; God saw everything that he had made, and it was very good. We are just supposed to be aware that vain people can deceive us through traditions and philosophies patterned or styled after those elements that are not according to Christ. Most Native Americans lived with a deep recognition of their connectedness to the earth and an awareness of a spiritual world. Some worshipped some of the various spirits; others worshipped the Great Spirit and let none other take His place. God made everything very good, but all the foundations are out of course. It's all waiting to be liberated. Listen to the trees. Tell them of a foundation that will not pass away when the sons of God will liberate them with their glory. If you are silent, the stones will cry out. Psalms 69:34 Let heaven and earth praise him; The seas, and everything that moves therein (not just people)!