oldiesman

Wordwolf, That's why I think it's important to make a fairly clear distinction between fornication and adultery. You're not suggesting that fornication is nearly as bad as adultery, are you? Let's not forget that "thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the 10 commandments. "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is in the 10 commandments. "thou shalt not bear false witness" is in the 10 commandments. I see nothing there about fornication... I am aware that God's best is for adults to get married before having sex, but it's just not that cut and dry in real life and today's world. Don't you agree?

Of course there is. Here's an example: a good looking, sexy single female reverend is horny and wants to have sex with me. I consent. Voila! I don't call that abuse, do you?

John S.'s paper corroborates that this stuff was certainly discussed and believed. I don't recall it ever being "taught", as in CFS, but I think it matters little now. I'd also like to again state what I believe is an important distinction, the one between fornication and adultery. I think these are two separate issues. Fornication doesn't necessarily have to be abusive, if you have two consenting adults. It can be in a lockbox private matter that doesn't hurt anyone else if it's handled correctly. Personally I don't have a problem with that. Adultery is another matter entirely.

I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between fornication and adultery. For instance, two singles fornicating doesn't have to be abusive. Whereas, two committing adultery is definitely because of the betrayal of trust, bearing false witness, breaking of one of the commandments, etc.

Mo, Folks can believe whatever they wish. But I wouldn't call it wrong or ungodly if someone chose to disassociate themselves with others who don't share their beliefs, or wish to withdraw from folks who think their beliefs are harmful or stupid. This principle was practiced by Jesus, Paul and other biblical characters. Remember "evil associations corrupt good morals, ethics"?? How far one goes with that is the individual's choice, but one shouldn't be thought of as unloving or abusive if one chooses to only associate with folks with certain beliefs. That's the individual's choice.

George, let's get real. Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now? I can't think of too many scenarios where'd that be reasonable, except perhaps work, where you earn a paycheck and are there to perform tasks for your employer.

Real friends are genuinely interested in what you're into. If they can't be bothered knowing, or even making a small attempt in knowing, what interests you, how are these folks your friends? Are they worth hanging around, knowing they couldn't give a fig about what you thought and believed? Jesus said something about this, that his true family wasn't necessarily his earthly brethen, but those who hung around him and were genuinely interested in his life, thoughts, words and deeds.

Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe? This also happened even when folks didn't want twig. If folks are sincerely interested in me as a person, they'd check out what I was into. Relationships with girlfriends ring a bell. I'd share with them about twig, or PFAL, that I got lots of goodies from it, you'd think they'd check it out just to see where I'm coming from? Sometimes. There's always two sides to this argument. You speak in such absolutes; but I've seen true love, care and concern during my stint. If some folks didn't see it, I can't imagine why they would've stayed so long. Speak for yourself -- why accuse your brothers and sisters of acting this way? I think most of us just wanted to love folks, and see them also have the benefits we enjoyed. Another insult. I think if that was the case, most of us wouldn't have ever gotten involved. We agree on this point. Fornication was always a private matter between the participants. The victim mentality propaganda machine wants us to believe we were all victims, and victimizers. How else can they sell all their endless books and tapes? Another insult designed to think of yourself as a glassy-eyed brainwashed zombie who had no will of your own, no commitment and dedication to God's Word, no love of your own, and no reason for involvement other than supply the needs of the "monsters".

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.