oldiesman

Wordwolf said: I would be happy to listen/read about any stories about specific reproof given, and the consequences thereof.I know of at least one instance I believe is true, from "The Cult That Snapped", where Ralph D. confronted both VP and Craig about the fornication problem. But that was before this letter and isn't applicable to folks we are discussing. Again, am willing to hear specifics. Even the limb coordinator of NY couldn't/wouldn't give me specifics, when I asked. Yet most of the whole limb followed him anyway, which shows me that they weren't interested in specifics themselves. I was allowed to read a couple of VF's followup letters as well, that he sent to my twig coordinator. No specifics. Lots of suspicion, backbiting, hard heartedness. Complaining about him getting the boot...etc.

I totally agree, and this was part of Craig's rationale.Craig wrote: Wordwolf wrote: Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else. In contrast, the focus Craig was after, was this, when he wrote:

Not so Oakspear.Part of Craig's rationale was that this had been done several times before by VP, when VP perceived that folks needed to recommitment themselves to stand with VP and Corps leadership in the movement of the Word. Therefore Craig wonders why should folks now act so incredulous that he, Craig, make the same request. The focus is on making a commitment to stand with Craig to move the Word. Here's an excerpt from Craig's April 14, 1989 Loyalty Companion Letter: And so part of Craig's rationale was that folks were leaving *just because* of this request for loyalty which was widely considered by those leaving, to be "carnal". They were saying he was carnal, and "look at how off he is." Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.Craig also invited folks to be specific with reproof and where he was off. He wrote: This indicates that instead of receiving specific godly scriptural reproof, he said he received vagueness, and much suspicion. He also wrote: And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.

Oakspear, there are more of us than some realize. "we are one"

ULC also provides certificates through U.S. mail.

Thanks for pointing that out Oakspear. Actually Oakspear, he did suggest in the letter that one may stand with God irrespective of what people one chooses to stand with. I thought that was a great statement he wrote.Craig wrote:

Oh come on Goey, try to be a little more tolerant of others' beliefs will ya? :lol: From what I've read so far, the ULC ordinations aren't based on a Christian perspective at all since they allow anyone of varied spiritual beliefs/non spiritual beliefs to be ordained. It is not a Christian church, or limited only to Christians. Athiests pagans wiccans and satan worshippers may also be ordained. :lol: "we are one" B)

To my knowledge, ULC doesn't support rape adultery and pedophilia, but only "that which is good". Of course, "good" may be defined by an individual. :lol: But I'm not sure if they actually defrock ordained clergy who have been convicted of these crimes. I have to check...they have a website and a discussion board. It's very interesting. :lol: :lol:

My favorite Elvis Gospel single is "Joshua Fit The Battle". Another favorite is "We Call On Him". I looked for these pictures sleeves in my collection and found Joshua and Milky White Way, but couldn't find We Call on Him. I might have sold it on ebay. BTW, this "Joshua Fit The Battle" picture sleeve is perhaps the nicest example in the country. I kid you not. You hardly find this particular sleeve without some kind of ringwear, and the previous owner of this sleeve was a big Elvis collector and kept this thing immaculate. Belle, my favorite is "Run On". Sounds just like a Rap song but with a gospel theme. "what you do in the dark will be brought to the light!"

I made a mistake. It is not Universalist, it is the "Universal Life Church". BTW, I can also perform Exorcisms. Here is the official Holy Water I may use.

Umm, I'm not sure right now. Let me look up with the principles of my church is and I'll get back to you. :lol:

I do not believe this to be the case. We can be loyal to people as well. Here's an excerpt from Craig's companion letter of April 14, 1989: (I have added paragraphs to make it an easier read).

I misspoke. I couldn't have made that conclusion back then, because at that time, I hadn't known anyone who was complaining about LCM's sexual misconduct, or that his sexual misconduct was a reason they gave for not standing with him.

Bluzeman thanks for your support. The guy who was sent home was definitely treated unfairly compared to others. I know premarital sex was tolerated, that's for sure. I had heard rumors that many folks in my WOW branch were "doing it" back in Amarillo TX in 1974-75. I mentioned this to the branch coordinator. She poo poo'd my allegations, and said later (in front of a few folks) that I "squealed on" half the branch. That statement corroborated those rumors. I learned later that she was one of them having premarital. As I think back now, the person who was running the branch wasn't much of a leader. Sort of a fake "toughness", with little real substance. Boy oh boy, the absence of clear and consistent correct doctrine on sexual activities caused so many problems, didn't it?

At that time I didn't know anything about sexual misconduct. But you are correct, it couldn't have been a "conclusion", since it wasn't relevant to begin with.

Goey is correct. Let me pipe in here and say that I am an ordained minister in the Universalist Life Church. Marriage anyone? And stay the hell out of my parking spot. "we are one"

Then you would have had justification to leave, even BEFORE the loyalty letter; but that was not the reason from what I saw.I spoke with my twig coordinator, branch coordinator, area coordinator, limb coordinator about them leaving, and not one of these folks said anything about sexual misconduct of LCM. Nor did the many twiggies I spoke with about that. I personally spoke with the limb coordinator, June of that year (1989), asking him to stand with Craig. Had he responded something like this, "well Phil, the reason why I am not standing with Craig is, among others, cause he has committed adultery in the past, and doesn't want to change". Had he responded like that, I would have respected his decision! Instead of that, he said that I was carnal, my family was carnal, that the BOT is carnal and worshipping other gods, with no specifics. Gee, what a spiritual guy. Therefore I concluded that sexual misconduct of LCM had little to do with folks leaving, and I still hold to that opinion and haven't heard a whole lot of evidence otherwise. What I saw was he was asking for support from his staff and if at that point the staff and corps couldn't or wouldn't give it to him, for whatever reason, he was asking them to be honest about it and resign. Craig wrote Here he implies that one CAN stand with God in a situation other than standing with him, and he asked folks to be honest with themselves and if they couldn't support him, go elsewhere where you can stand with God with someone else.

Fear not. And have a great weekend...

Of course it depends on the severity of the crime, but it may also be that they don't want to rat on a brother/sister in Christ if they don't have to. But kicking them out immediately is strong punishment, and better than keeping them in, wouldn't you say?

WOW, I hadn't read this thread up until now, and it's very interesting. This may put to rest the idea that LCM was picked by "revelation". Ha ha! how true how true.Here's a little stow-ray: Don't know if I ever posted this, but I was one of the runners who ran one of the 10 mile legs, from Rome City to Athens, carrying the torch. I think I also was the only non-corps person running. As I recall, this effort was coordinated by Bob Moynihan and all who ran received a bronze medallion. I had been training for this event for 6 months prior to make sure I'd be able to run 10 miles straight without stopping. The day before the start at Rome City, I develop this sharp pain in one of my legs. I start limping around and start getting very worried that I might not be able to run. While limping by the reception desk, a gal at the reception desk saw me limping, and I told her what was wrong. She immediately layed hands and prayed for me. The pain was gone. Next day, I ran the 10 miles with no problems. Day after that, my body ached all over, except that one part of my leg that was healed the day before! True story. Anyway, back to Craig, yeah he had to have the spotlight. Those of us who did the marathon ran 10 miles each, but all of a sudden when the torch is coming around the corner guess who's carrying it? Craig. Did he run 10 miles? No. Apparently Craig grabbed the torch a few yards back, and started running carrying the torch to the front with some others behind him. So here we are, each one running 10 miles busting our butts while we watch Craig grabbing the freakin torch running his few yards and getting all the attention like he's been running for miles. :lol:

Goey, I submit that my belief in and agreement with Craig's 1989 letters are most likely minority beliefs. But I think my reasoning is still sound, nonetheless.However, as far as my overall experience and witness that twi was at one time "moving the Word" and a "ministry of God", I believe that may be the majority opinion of ex-wayers too. It depends on who you talk to I suppose, but I hold to that opinion not only because of my own personal experiences, and those of others that I know, some of who were in better position than me to know, but also those that are STILL THERE somehow hanging in and being loyal even today, plus all the plethora of folks in the offshoots, who have "eaten the fish and spit out the bones".

I still believe that Oakspear. You explained it well even though you don't believe it anymore.

At that point he did believe he was God's choice to lead the ministry as he was commissioned to do, and he had not quit and was still moving.And he believed his was God's choice from the installation. Here's an excerpt from his letter: If memory serves, I think the "genuine spiritual suspicion" false doctrine started sometime in 1994.

I simply think those who didn't want to stand with Craig in the movement of the Word were asked to leave, it's really that simple.Here is another way he put it in his April 14, 1989 letter, some biblical words: I believe the distinction was all the more necessary, because of all the purported hard feelings and ill will against Craig at that time.I have even heard some opinions (maybe you have too) that it even goes as far back as 1982, when Craig was installed as president. The ill will and resentment started with some leaders way back then. Some leaders of the way never accepted his installation, believing it should be someone else, believing Craig was an idiot jock or whatever, and all those years let the negative feelings brew, just waiting for an opportunity to rebel. No, I don't believe so. I think that is a slight extremist position. If you are talking, say, after 1993, I'd tend to agree.

Well this works both ways.While I can only be a witness to my own experience and that which I have personally witnessed, I'm always open to hearing and assessing others' experiences and try to factor that in. But, I am not going to ignore or poo poo MY experience, which you consistently seem to do. Versions of things other than yours might be something you might want to try to consider when making YOUR assessment of things.