oldiesman

Hi Shaz, I guess it's ok if you want to think of VPW/LCM as monsters, coupled with insulting the participants, thinking of them as nothing more than glassy-eyed, zombie-like victims who can't make a decision on their own or accept any responsibility for their own actions. Otherwise, it's great!

Speaking from a Spiritual Partner's viewpoint, I like Research Geek's attitude. I hate to think all that spiritual partnership money went to total waste.

Excathedra, Thanks for mentioning this...I think it does factor heavily into the mix of why some folks display loyalty, while others not.

I never took WAP, and never quite got the lesbian sex deal. I mean, why emphasize only a lesbian aspect; if the Devil manifests as a female and has sex with Adam as well, that wasn't lesbian sex, was it? Could it be that the lesbian teaching was more about getting back at Donna and Rosalie for possibly being more than friends, or am I totally off the wall?

I hope this isn't off topic, but did any of you WC folks ever sleep with anyone, to get Corps sponsorship? I remember one Rock, this Corps gal I just met was hanging around me all day. I thought something was up, but hey, it was ok by me. So after the night teaching we rode my motorcycle back to my hotel room, and stayed there all night, doing you know what. The next morning, while riding back to the Rock, she asked me if I would sponsor her. I said, "geeze, I don't think I can, I'm already sponsoring two people." haha ha ha ha

Vickles, Just because I think Craig's Loyalty Letters I and II were right on, doesn't mean I want to go back today. Lots of erroneous decisions were made after, to give me good reason not to go back, or at least be suspicious enough not to send them any more money, unless they cleaned up their act, if perchance I would attend any meeting in the future.

Shaz, I think Don would have went to bat for you if he could; maybe he knew his talking to his Dad would do no good, so why bother? I don't know. I personally was let down by Craig and Dr. Wierwille myself; I just got over it and didn't hold any grudges. Ex10, aside from the adultery issue, how do you know he didn't do the right thing in his circumstance? Do you know what went on behind closed doors? What decisions he tried to have implemented? What the discussions were? I suppose the only thing that would have satisfied some folks was for him to resign; its been said here before. Some people are just out for blood. But personally, I would have rather had a guy like Don there and give what influence he could.

Thinking he would whitewash anything.

Shazdancer, This is off topic but I thought I'd respond. Sorry to hear about your situation, but it sounds like Don was only communicating info. that was already "decreed", and he couldn't do much about it. Don was a personal and family friend, and all the dealings I and my family ever had with him were honest and above reproach. It's extremely disturbing to hear that he also had problems with adultery; however, I haven't reason to believe he would lie to me -- unless one believes that a person who engages in adultery always must lie about everything else. So no, I don't think Don would have whitewashed anything. Also, giving folks the benefit of the doubt means you're willing to have them prove themselves to you; Don proved to be a family friend in my case, so I have no reason to think evil.

Oakspear, I'll give you my take on it. For folks like VF, who were following and standing with Geer, the letter was bad news because it smoked them out. They already were thinking the worst of Craig for years, didn't think he would change under any circumstances, didn't want to give him any more chances; so it was the end for those folks. Others, ordinary Joe Believer twiggies, who followed folks like VF and who knew virtually nothing about the personal lifestyles of the BOT, would have gone either way. They followed folks like VF, and had folks like VF stood with LCM, the ordinary Joe Believer twiggies would have hung around as well. As I think back what confirms this is the folks (limb coordinators) who stood with LCM, didn't have the mass exodus in their states like in mine. What the Hay stated in a previous post that some of these folks, who previously stood with VF and others and left when VF and others left, were coming back to TWI -- along with the new folks who were recruited. However, in my judgment there was only a period of about 5 years in there (1989-1994) where things were still tolerable in the sense that the unabashed legalism hadn't yet set in. PFAL and WOW were still around as well.

Rascal, ha ha...it was YOU who brought up the distraction of being a woman was being a victim. Anyone can say their primary loyalty is to God, but if you think the president of the group is off the wall and worshipping other gods, you probably shouldn't hang around. Think of it as a priest who ministers in a large parish, who thinks the Pope is off the wall. The Priest says "I serve and stand with God, and to hell with the Pope". Clang clang, here comes the Popemobile to escort him out...

Rascal, my tc's were a married couple. The woman was opposed to staying with TWI, the man was in favor. The man, according to him, to keep his marriage together, relented and did what the woman wanted. The punchline: women have more power in TWI than they realize, or would care to admit.

Alfakat, Partial baloney. That may be true of some, but the folks I knew, baloney. They followed VF, the area coords and the twig coords, who followed VF. They had no demonstrable, justifiable, logical reason. VF was ....ed with LCM, THAT'S why. They followed the NY crowd. Had VF stayed and stood with LCM, you think the whole of NY would have left? No way in heaven and hell.

According to Craig, the folks whose primary loyalty was to God, was not a problem at all. The key ingredient was:

It's not mixed feelings about adultery being wrong, but mixed feelings about these folks tolerating it. It's hard to imagine something being so wrong, being tolerated and explained away like that.

Because it appears the missing ingredient, was your willingness to at least give Craig the benefit of the doubt and declare you'd be willing to stand with him in the movement of the Word. One of the points I tried to make with VF, was that if his commitment level to TWI and God and the Word was so strong, vital, and sure, why would he allow Craig's request to stop him from doing what he really wanted to do; i.e., move the Word in TWI? So in that sense, Rascal, if you wanted so desperately to remain with TWI moving the Word, why not just give in a little, and do what he asked, which was:

Radar, thanks, and you are correct. They can get involved if they want, but they want no part of this. I personally would love to hear from the Wierwille's and what they think of all this, but it seems they're in the same boat, they don't want to get involved. But I'd still like to hear their perspectives.

Oakspear, thanks for confirming the vagueness. I also see your point about not being involved after that. My actions would have been a little different; I would have stayed involved locally (if I was with honest folks) but not contributed any more money to hq unless and until my questions/complaints were answered satisfactorily.

I never knew the Corps tolerated adultery and still have mixed feelings about it. How can they honestly tolerate something that's such a betrayal of trust. I know I've heard the stupid excuses, like "shaking hands" and whatnot. I knew we tolerated fornication...and that issue seemed to be always dealt with as a private matter between, um, the fornicating parties. But still and all, I think the adultery issue is irrelevant to Craig's 1989 request for commitment and loyalty to move the Word, at least where I was and the state I was in. Sex was not an issue. If it was an issue, I would have known about it back then, confronted it, and that's that.

JustThinking, Thanks so much for the compliment. I have to say though, in all honesty, I don't see myself as being slow to judge...I think I've done my fair share of judging, which is why I get a fair amount of criticism. But thanks for your kind words.

Wordwolf, So then you're saying that some folks wrote something like this?: "Craig, we heard a rumor that you have been having an (more than one) extra-marital affair. Is this true? Could you please explain?" And you're saying Craig said "that's none of your business"?? If that's the case, they were right to leave. But, I certainly wish some of those folks were New Yorkers, cause that ain't the way it went down in the Empire state.

Alfakat, I'm intrigued. I don't know if it will change anything now, but it sounds interesting.

I would have done the same thing I'm suggesting to you now. I think the problem back then wasn't specificity; it was vagueness.

By "then", do you mean 1989? I would have written down all my complaints, and addressed them directly with Don Wierwille when I spoke with him in 1989 about continuing to stand with TWI. If I had been knowledgable of Craig's adultery in 1989, I would have made the attempt to contact him and ask him about it; find out his side and asked if his actions changed.

Raf, you are correct. Had I known at that point, or if someone would have taken some time to explain some specifics (i.e. VF), that Craig was having an (or more than one) extra-marital affair, or something else demonstrably carnal, I would have asked questions, directed at the Trustees. I had access, at that point. VF didn't mention anything about sex. My TC's never mentioned anything about sex. All I heard from VF was that the Trustees were worshipping other gods, with no specifics. I personally had no complaints, other than the lack of communication by the Trustees; which was admitted to me directly by Don Wierwille. Additionally, all the folks I spoke to who were leaving, were vague about why they were leaving, other than the fact that they thought Craig was a carnal thinker and the Trustees were screwed up. No real specifics, like adultery. And again, I had asked my TC's to make a list of all their complaints and address them directly with the Trustees....and they refused.