oldiesman

A month after the 1989 letter, I wrote a 3-page letter to VF, sent it to him at the limb by federal express, beseeching him to stay and stand with TWI and Craig, because I thought at that time that all of our goals were the same, that we all wanted to bless and help folks with God's Word and in that sense we were all likeminded, and we could simply all start with a clean slate. What I hadn't realized at the time, was how far VF had gone against Craig. He really thought Craig was worshipping other gods. Someone who was once Craig's best friend turned into one of his worst enemies. VF never responded to my letter, and when I saw him at a meeting a couple of months after that, he was calling me carnal.

Alfakat, I will tell you what I strongly believed at that time, and opine what I believe the next 3 years would have been like. I believe if folks like VF and others in my state and area decided to stay with TWI, try to start fresh and give TWI and the BOT a clean slate to work with at that time, things may have been better for a while. Problem was, just about everyone in my vacinity left TWI so it couldn't right itself, cause hardly anyone was left. In my state, feelings against TWI and the BOT were very strong against. I can't speak for other areas of the country but as I tried to suggest earlier, decisions made subsequent to the 1989 letter (many of them we agree were very bad) stand on their own and were separate from the letter itself.

Here's what I think was godly: Moving the Word in this context is running PFAL classes, preaching the Word, teaching, fellowshipping, praying, etc., all the stuff we did in TWI that was godly.

Hope, thank you for being so thorough in your recollection of the events and where you stood; you've made lots of great points.

Was Paul the Apostles ministry built on sand? Was Paul right? how come that didn't hold up? If what you say is true, its because the ministry at that time was built on sand, and not on the Rock. I take the 1989 letter at face value, separate from decisions made later. I thought the letter made some very reasonable points; decisions made later were un-reasonable. I think a problem with your viewpoint Alfakat is, you leave no room for Craig or TWI to be correct or godly in anything. Every decision has to have some sort of an evil motive behind it. I think that's why its so hard from some folks to see that Dr. Wierwille or Craig Martindale or any other BOT, sometimes made godly reasonable decisions.

Hope, good point. Another way to look at it was, since at the time I was standing with TWI and Craig, I didn't want my ABS going to these folks who at the time complain about how bad TWI and Craig was. "If you don't like it, leave already" was the thought that went through my mind sometimes.

Goey said: Goey, I will defer to Oakspear's comment before I change my opinion. His quote:

Goey, Yes I was supportive of Craig at the time. I was a twiggy, not needing to send him a letter of support but would have because I had no problem with me supporting him at that time. I didn't see Craig as "the Man of God of our Day and Time". I saw him as my brother in Christ who was going to try to do his best to lead the ministry. In that spirit, I thought it was good to give him my support. Goey, the thing is, he never said it was a demand for loyalty; you and others are saying that. That is your interpretation of the letter. I never saw it that way; I saw it as being supportive of a man, standing with him to move the Word. To stop thinking evil of him, if that was the case, or at least giving him a fresh clean slate. Doesn't mean that you need to be loyal to him for evermore. Did he say that? No, but you and others are thinking that and coming off like that.

Oakspear, you brought some interesting comments. Thanks. I think peoples opinions on the letter is in what spirit you took it in. The way I took it, Craig was asking for folks to stand with him in the continued movement of God's Word. He says it a couple of times. Here's another quote: What he was asking for was a show of support to begin anew, asking for support to stand with him in the movement of God's Word. Here's another quote: At that time there were lots of folks who didn't want to work with Craig, but this was an opportunity for them to change their minds and give him another chance. Did he deserve it? Probably not, but that's besides the point. He was looking for support, for a clean break from the past. Now don't get me wrong...he's the one who started this mess by opening his big mouth about POP, after coming back from Gartmore. But I think he was looking to start with a clean slate. Very good point. It would have been much better for folks to come right out and say they thought Craig wasn't up for the job, he screwed up and I no longer want to stand with him. But instead some said "I stand with God, not with any man". What was hypocritical was the folks saying that, the Geerites, were STANDING WITH MEN. The people that followed them were standing with men. This doesn't apply to everyone but I thought those pointing fingers needed to look in the mirror and see themselves doing the same thing.

Alfakat, we're talking about the 1989 letter; decisions made years later are not relevant to the letter's merits, or lack thereof.

jar1122, there were definite concerns and actual practice of ABS going outside the U.S. Here's a quote from the letter:

Raf, I beg to differ; he was already in Geer's camp for months before the letter. When he received the letter, he wrote his own letter to all the leadership, including all the twig coordinators, badmouthing Craig and the BOT. He tried and succeeded in turning practically the whole state against TWI at the time. Those who chose to contact the BOT at the time, and get their side of the story, were given the other side. But VF was already in Geer's camp. Why do you think he was sending ABS to Gartmore? When I personally spoke to him a couple of months after the March letter, he told me that I was carnal; and the BOT were "worshipping other gods". What did all that mean? What was he talking about? There were no explanations, just that we were carnal and the bot worshipping other gods. Gee what a spiritual guy. Alfakat, Naturally he's not going to reveal that he stand with Geer...gee that would be a carnal thing, wouldn't it? Lest VF be thought of as carnal....he stand with G-O-D.

Yes, it was. Here's the quote from the letter: So he's asking for a vote of confidence and support to stand with him in the movement of God's Word. It looks to me like all folks had to do was write him a short letter saying "we stand with and support you in the movement of God's word, as spoken in your letter" etc.

Taken from another thread, Goey said: I heard that over and over again at that time. I was carnal. It was a carnal choice. I remember speaking to VF about it myself a couple of months after the letter was distributed and he accused me to my face of being carnal, for choosing to stand with TWI at the time. Of course, his choice, to stand with Geer, was SPIRITUAL? His choice was presumably spiritual, yet he was doing the same thing I was doing, only with someone else.

I'm not speaking or judging you, but Rascal would it have been so terrible to write a letter to Craig saying you stand with him in the movement of the Word over the World? What's the big deal? It's a vote of confidence for moving the Word and your part in it. You're not worshipping the guy by doing that.

He was saying in the letter that basically, you weren't useless to God, but that if you wanted to stand with him you had to decide if you were standing with him or not. Look at it this way. Let's say I'm the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses (or any other denomination), and there's a leader out on the field that's thinking and speaking evil against me, especially one that's on the payroll. He thinks I'm a jerk. As the leader of the Jehovah's, do I want the church followers to be subjected to a malcontent liek that? Someone who's not in one accord with me or doesn't like me or someone who thinks I'm a jerk?

Rascal, I just read the letter once again, and I can't find anywhere he said "and don't give him any loyalty to God crap..." can you please point that out? Here's what he said: It's pretty obvious that the Geerites and others who weren't in accord with LCM (that's a nice way of putting it) were asked to make a decision. I don't have a problem with this. Try to look at it another way. Why should folks, who have no problem standing with LCM at the time, hear and be with malcontents who think so low of LCM? It's not fair for them either. He was basically asking the folks who were thinking evil of him, to leave. Either that, or give him the benefit of the doubt in decision made. Rascal, if you have a legitimate reason for leaving at that time...I can't argue with you. It's true, I don't have all the facts of every case. But it was all the folks (especially from NY) who left who never had any good reasons other than hearsay from someone who conVINCEd them to leave. Big whispering campaign going that went on.

Taken from another thread, Hope R. said: Hope, I didn't see that as being unreasonable considering the circumstances. But it's possible it could be overboard with simple Corps grads. I don't know but are you saying that even Corps grads were asked for a written response by April 5? I didn't get that part. But I saw what he was asking for was folks to stand with him, and for the employees not to be insubordinate. Here's one quote: That sounds reasonable; I see nothing wrong with him asking the Geerites, and all the other folks discontent with his leadership, to make a decision. There was much discontent and all he's asking for is folks to make a decision who you're going to stand with, since the committed Geerites' position was that the BOT were worshipping other gods.

Insurgent, How do you know that LCM didn't address their concerns, for those who cared to address them directly to him? I was involved at the time and yes I stand by what I say. Lots of folks didn't care much about what LCM had to say at the time; I remember this time in TWI being very accusatory against LCM. Being in NY at the time, the limb coordinator at the time conVINCEd almost everyone in NY to abandon TWI. Did they address their concerns directly with LCM and Don Wierwille before leaving? NADA. At least not those I was exposed to in my area; they just left, with only one side of the story. So in that sense all Craig did was help people move onto something else if they were against TWI. ... not necessarily a bad thing. I looked for the letter on GS but couldn't find it, if anyone has a link perhaps it can be posted here so folks may view its contents.

If I may, one point in defense of Craig's letter of 1989 (the famous Loyalty Oath letter) was that it was directed to Way employees and not everybody in the Way. I remember at this time there were numerous people on the fence and those still salaried by TWI who were against them (the Geerites). There were reports of folks still on TWI payroll sending ABS to Geer. And so I didn't think that Craig's letter was all that bad because it drew the line. Of course, it gave folks who were on the fence ample excuses to leave. But I think it's what happened after that with all the legalism that was really bad.

Wow I agree. I think the Corps was the big problem; where the jerk, legalism and ego training was taught and promoted. To me, it's the clearest least common denominator of what was, and what went wrong with TWI.

JustThinking, thanks for the info. That would explain the folks at hq, but what about those out in the field. Someone very close to me, out on the field, got dismissed from the Corps for marrying a non-corps spouse. Another person close to me got hassled for owning a cat. Gee, what a great way to encourage more love in the household! NOT!

I see this as a very big injustice by LCM & Co. Does anyone know/care to opine what would motivate him to do this? As if some Corps folks weren't snobby enough...

I get the impression that Mel's motive for doing this was both for profit (which isn't a sin) and for expounding the gospels. Hey, that's fantastic...how can anyone complain about that? LLP, regarding the primary focus on the torture, isn't it a good thing because that's exactly what the gospels say, albeit with few words, explaining all about how Christ gave his life and what horror he had to go through. This film is a coup for biblical fans. One would think that TWI folks would be happy about a film that is more accurate than others on this topic. Just look at all the watered-down crucifixion accounts we've been exposed to all these years and tell me Mel's film isn't head and shoulders above them biblically.

A La Prochaine, I don't think I'm being harsh. I disagree. Did you happen to check out Catcup's thread? (Stand Up And Hold Her Accountable) She asks some very direct questions, for those still in; perhaps you and others still in may consider those questions.