oldiesman

I don't look at it as deliberately placing people in harm's way. But, if someone wanted to sue them if they thought they'd get financial recompense for damages, it might make sense depending on the circumstances.This reminds me of my cooperative. I was on the Board of Directors, and was protected by insurance, in the event someone falls on ice or whatnot and sues the Corporation and me for damages. Was it my intent that the person fall and hurt themselves? No! Same may be said of the bot. Was it their intent that folks got hurt, raped, murdered? I trow not :lol: Everything is *intent*. But it is possible that the Corporation *can be* legally held responsible for damages depending on the individual circumstances, which is why businesses have insurance policies, and specific officers & directors insurance policies to protect themselves individually as directors. Even if they did all that at all times, their efforts still wouldn't have guaranteed safety at all times.

I don't know how they could have possibly guaranteed safety.That's like saying they claimed they were able to eliminate ungodliness. :lol: :lol: Having coffee right now, Cool.And no I am not a closet innie!! So then you believe that nobody in twi ever received revelation or godly inspiration? Well, we just disagree. :lol:

Fear not, ex 10. Come. Join us. "we are one"

Why not?Just looking at the numbers alone, they must be doing something right. :lol:

Even if they were, how could the bot guarantee that the people who volunteered would always walk in godliness?Or, how could the bot guarantee that some wouldn't display horrible ungodliness, at various times? It is hardly like it.If the bot knowingly gave known pedophiles fellowships and children's fellowships, then yes, those on the bot making that decision should be blamed. But how does that compare with a shooting incident that the bot knows nothing about until after the fact?

Unless the director of the WOW program or the twi bot knew of the dangerous unstablity of this person, how can they be blamed for this shooting?It's about as lame an excuse as one might try to blame the firearms manufacturer for the misuse of firearms. But some do try...

That's all for me today folks. Have a great weekend

I don't doubt you were informed that he didn't have wheels. I think he may have even mentioned that at the meeting we attended. But, I was informed otherwise. After I heard from Vince how mistreated he supposedly was, I addressed this and was told that he was given (given) a van that formerly belonged to the Way of NY. I think it may have been the bookstore van at the time. He also was given a severance package: $$money. You don't have to believe me, but I am sticking with this opinion because it was told to me by someone I trust who knew all about that stuff. I don't think Vince was the helpless victim he portrayed himself to be and I don't think he disclosed all the facts about his situation with folks. It's not an issue; i'm just relaying some facts of that day. I wish Vince the best and always will.

What other gods were/are they worshipping? Who are they? Name them. Be specific. Don Wierwille was an administrator. Who did he worship, the Administrator God? :lol:

If he thought that, he was wrong. Why should he be afraid or have reservations about giving details? Details and facts would have proven his point of view. He didn't owe me anything, but it sure would have been the loving thing to do for him to give specific details and facts, if he had them, rather than jerk me around some.Trust his judgments without confirmatory details? I Trow Not :lol: Maybe you ignored them. Personally, I didn't hear anything from them. Also, in state of NY, nobody I spoke to mentioned anything about sexual misconduct. I would have addressed that, if I knew about it.

Ok Goey, you're right. I should have said I Trow Not :)

Wordwolf wrote: I really beg to differ! Not sure if it was the same meeting we were at, but the meeting I was at, folks greeted us were wearing Way nametags. Don't remember if it was NY or twi, but it was "The Way". Same thing. These things (nametags, songbooks, grapevines) all belonged to the Way of New York and twi. Same bible group. Vince was using his former employer's name and belongings, for his own purposes. It was a pathetic moment. If he wanted to conduct his own meeting and have CBC nametags, songbooks, grapevines, and so forth, that would have been different.

Yeah I thought about it, and don't see the carnality of my decision, under the circumstances. As Craig suggested, the carnality is determined by the mindset of the person making the decision. I stood with Craig at that time because I believed he was moving the Word or at least wanted to move it in a greater capacity than he had been in the previous 3 years, and he wanted and needed support therein, which I gave to him. To say it was carnal to make a pledge to stand with and support Craig in the movement of Gods' Word, is like saying its carnal to make a pledge to stand with and support Joe Torre to win the pennant, or like saying it's carnal to make a pledge to stand with and support General George Casey to win the Iraq war. In sum, I don't see how its carnal to stand with and support a leader in a Cause one believes in. Our cause in twi at that time was moving the Word, which he wrote was the only context in which he required loyalty and obedience. I thought Vince was a great believer and a good man who got tricked by Geer. Heck, he didn't treat me that bad. Just because he gave me the cold shoulder treatment that once and didn't respond to my letter, doesn't make him a bad person. I'm just relaying to you some facts. I think his statement about the bot "worshipping other gods" was off the mark.

Wordwolf wrote: I beg to differ. I wrote down concerns and then addressed them directly with Don Wierwille. Called him on the telephone. I went to ROA 1989 too, saw what was happening.One of my concerns was the lack of communication between the BOT, and believers in the twigs. Don told me that that was correct, there was a breakdown of communication and that the bot would do better about it in the future. Also asked him about the breakdown between Vince and the BOT. Don told me what Vince told him and me, that Vince believed they were worshipping other gods... I asked questions and listened to folks around me in NY, for specifics on how the bot was blowing it. None were offered. No beef, no juice, nothing that I'd be able to write down and address with Don when I called him. I asked my twig coordinators to write down their concerns. They refused. I don't know who you were speaking to and what questions you were asking, but if you didn't address your concerns directly with one of the BOT, then you really can't say your heard all sides or you gave them an honest chance to explain their side of your allegations.

Socks, you made some excellent points. Thanks. :D

I partially agree. He was ultimately responsible, yes. But as time went on, from 1989 thru and approaching 1994 and beyond, I heard he gave more and more credence and listened more and more to Rosalie and Donna, who became his counsellors. I heard he basically shelved Don & Howard. "In the know" folks have attested to this fact, and I believe that fact greatly and negatively affected ministry decisions, which were becoming more and more harmful and legalistic as the years went by. Most certainly made up their minds to leave without hearing all sides, did they not?Did most even bother to hear from the Bot, call them up and address their concerns directly with them? Nah. It's just like what Craig wrote. At that point, folks were judging them guilty, even before the bot had a chance to prove anything.

At that point, I'm sure a lot of accusations and ill will were flying back and forth, on both sides. I certainly got ill will from Vince. So did the bot. I remember a NY meeting sometime after June of 1989 (around June of 89 I sent Vince a 3-page letter federal express, asking him to stand with Craig, which he never responded to). This meeting was after then when Vince was already fired, but was leading a so-called "Way International" meeting. So I just had to make an appearance. :lol: He was using Way Int'l songbooks, had a newsletter there with "the Way of New York" logo, yet he already had been fired! So right there he was stealing Way stuff and using it for himself. The substance of his teaching was how off Craig and the Bot were and how he had been mistreated. At the end of the teaching was when I spoke with Vince, asked him why he never responded to my letter, and why he wasn't standing with Craig. It was at that point he told me that I was carnal, my family was carnal, Craig and the BOT were worshpping other gods, and so forth, with no specifics. When I asked him for specifics, real specifics, he actually said something like this: "If I told you what really was going on, I'd be sinning" :lol: :lol: Gee. That really helped, didn't it? Anyway, he seemed teed off at me too, and walked away from me, no goodbyes or anything. Just walked away, giving me the cold shoulder treatment.

WordWolf Wrote: Well I can't say I blame you for not wanting to dig out your Way Memorabilia, as I too am too lazy to dig mine out as well. :lol: But if you ever get ambitious, I'd love to read about what specific issues VF confronted LCM about at this point in time, if any. So far, all I know about is vagueness and suspicion, no real specifics with any juice. BTW, you also may be forgetting something. In March of 1989, VF was in Chris Geer's camp for at last a year. He was following Geer. So I don't really know what biblical issues he could have helped Craig with since he thought Craig was off the wall worshipping other gods and would not change, since Geer thought the same thing. Vince was likeminded with Geer. But I still would be happy to read what specific issues VF confronted Craig about.

I was in NY, and I still firmly believe that had VF not followed Geer but instead allowed himself to stand with Craig to move the Word at that time, folks in NY would have stayed, on a massive scale.VF was a man above reproach. Those who knew him, loved and respect him. Had he decided to stay, and, shall I say "win another one for the Gipper", folks would have been happy to stay. And remember that the man Craig was in 1989 was most definitely not the man he was in 1999. He was far and above worse in 1999, and you would do well to consider that in your analysis.

Glad you had Ralph D... he also struck me as a decent man who wouldn't put up with that stuff. Didn't know him personally, but somehow I was at his house once in Long Island for a final session of PFAL. Another word about Ralph and WOW: When he was the Trunk Coordinator, I wrote him and complained about what I thought was a mistaken twi policy, which was the routine of allowing folks to sign up for WOW at the rock. I thought it didn't give them enough time to contemplate their decision, enough time to prepare, or enough time to count the cost, etc. Ralph wrote back to me and said we do that to allow folks to make a decision as God may work in their hearts; and that statistically speaking, percentage wise, less folks left the WOW field when they signed up at the Rock. That surprised me...

He lived it at times, I saw him walk in love, and at this point in his life he certainly could have been too. And walking in love isn't always a pat on the back to people. Sometimes it could be a kick in the butt. But I also have a letter from VF in my Way Memorabilia collection (forgot what date) where he writes that "barring none, Craig has more love of God in him than anyone", or words to that effect. I'm not joking. This was, of course, before the time period when VF started following Chris Geer. I wasn't the first to mention "blind obedience" on this thread, if that is what you were referring to.

They didn't. Otherwise, they would have told me about it. We were very close.However, even if they had, that incident could have been one of the issues they were upset about and something to address the BOT with. Well, first, any employer has a right to demand loyalty and obedience from his/her employees. Second, it was in the context of "moving the Word", which at one time was twi's Prime Objective. Perhaps this isn't a good example, but I also sometimes see it as something like being an officer in the military; there you have a Prime Objective, and you certainly would want to obey your commanding officer's orders when in the act of obtaining the Prime Objective, he gives a command.

It was a Corps teaching I heard back in 75-76. If you are uncomfortable with "corp principle", then I'll say it was a "corps teaching". I viewed blind obedience as something like a chain of command, something like in the military. I believe the corps had some military attributes about it. i.e. One was expected to follow the direction of leadership. This was all in the context of moving the Word. ("blind" doesn't mean go jump off the roof.) Of course, if the leadership was wrong, and you could prove that according to the word, or, offer specific godly reproof and correction, then you were/are perfectly within your rights to object to the "order", and hold your ground. Problem I saw back then was, folks were not offering any godly reproof or correction, just objecting to the chain of command concept, with no specifics. At least that was what I experienced in NY. I asked my twig coordinators to write down specifically all the problems, the beefs, they had with Craig and the BOT. We learned that if you have a problem with someone, you go directly to that person with it, and not behind their back. But they refused to do it. So that's another thing, I couldn't stand with folks who couldn't give a fig about what I asked and thought was a reasonable request. I asked the limb coordinator too. No specifics. Raf wrote: I strongly disagree, at least in the context of all this. Ask yourself this question, and please, try to be honest about it. If VF would have stayed, and made the commitment to stand with Craig in moving the Word, would you have still left? He would have conVINCEd everyone to stay and move the Word, that's exactly what would have happened for a few more years.

Wordwolf posted: It appears here that Outthere objects to Craig's request for loyalty. But where's the godly reproof and correction about Craig's walk of 1989? Any specifics?Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989. So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden? I would add, even blind obedience was in the context of moving the Word, as Craig wrote in his letter:

Welcome to the fold, Belle. "we are one"