oldiesman

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.

I learned of his extra-marital affair with an AOS cast member, years later. At this point in time (1989) I hadn't known about it at all. Don't know if everyone knew at that point as well. However, who's to really say at that point he wasn't making a fresh start and a new commitment? What he was asking for was the benefit of the doubt, and I didn't see where that would have been an ungodly (or carnal) choice.

Raf, ha ha.. Actually, I thought at the point of his request his mind was decent and in order and the reasoning behind the decision was sound. I remember back then, he was coming out of the fog, and 3-4 years after that, the Word did move as best as they could (I say 'they' because I was basically gone in 1991); there was still PFAL around until 1994 or so and the other things like WOW. The fact that you believe Craig at that point was a carnal thinker only goes to why he made the decision; to have folks think that way (and certainly express it verbally, continually) only makes it that much more difficult and tumultuous for everyone in the TWI family (household).

Excerpted from Craig's Companion Loyalty Letter II April 14, 1989

People paying $1000 a month mortgage toward the eventual "ownership" of a house cannot lead a fellowship; but people paying $1000 in rent toward the pocketbooks of someone else can? I just don't get their logic. (or illogic)

Golfie, As soon as I added my ABS from the forms, I threw them in the trash. They're destroyed. I still have a couple of light brown songbooks but can't find any more blue ones. Guess I must have destroyed them, too.

Ok I'm ready to spill the beans. According to my source, who knows VP's real signature and examined all three signatures, No's 1 and 2 are from his handlers; #3 is the REAL WIERWILLE #2 is from his secretary at that time #1 is from one of his handlers, don't know who

Raf, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think the reason why the scripture doesn't address whether the baby comes out dead or alive, is because the answer is pretty obvious. But that's me. I don't think the bible has to state every minute detail for us at times to use our common sense on some things.

Rafael, I read those links, and it seems to me that the folks on the side of "premature birth" are ignoring common horse sense. Let's say you and I are having a fight, and I cause the pregnant woman, who is 3 months pregnant, to abort. Are you saying that that fetus is going to stay alive after coming out? "and yet no mischief follow" can't mean the fetus in this case, can it? That's what these folks are ignoring, it seems they're just ignoring the obvious.

Rafael, I think the "premature birth" argument makes little sense because when a fetus "departs" and is at the 1st or 2nd term, mischief will ALWAYS follow, because the fetus will surely die unless some miracle takes place. Therefore I think the mischief refers to harm to the woman, not the fetus. The only way I see no mischief following and it refers to the fetus is if in the third term and the mother is near childbirth already. But that seems to me more outlandish. If that was what he was talking about, don't you think that verse would be more clear? What do you think?

I'd be more inclined to agree with it being a crime, for a late-term pregnancy where the "fetus" could live outside of the mother. Something like partial birth abortion, which I think should be banned. However, I do have a problem with charging a federal crime for the termination of "any stage of development" of the fetus. I think that's overboard.

Pat, I think the above statement gives you a good defense if Paul is willing to testify on your behalf.

Shaz, thanks for your response. From my source, I can relay that Wierwille Signature #1 and Wierwille Signature #2 are NOT the same person! Maybe one of them is the REAL Wierwille? P.S. Thanks for all responses from everyone...but only 27 poll participants so far, if you haven't voted yet please do...

Pat, please ask about the true relationship between Donna and Rosalie and why Donna gets to remain at hq. Is it just a good friendship, or something much deeper? Even if it were a friendship, why the royal treatment? As you know, this is quite important to lots of us cause of past TWI policy, that demands the spouse of disgraced or terminated Corps be sent away with the disgraced or terminated Corps.

Thursday, President Bush signed into law new protections for the unborn that, for the first time, make it a separate federal crime to harm a fetus during an assault on the mother. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero "any stage of development." Clearly, this puts into law for the first time that a fetus is a living soul. Contrast with TWI's view that when the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, at that time, and not before, man became a living soul. Additionally, Dr. Wierwille expounds from the Old Testament Exodus 21:22-24 showing that the fetus wasn't considered a human being. Wierwille writes: Victor Paul Wierwille By The Way April 30, 1981 I tend to agree with Wierwille and think the Old Testament view is more reasonable. What do you think?

Hallelujah! After days of searching and digging, cutting through the piles of TWI-related papers, I found a copy of Craig's "companion" letter to his March, 1989 Loyalty Letter. This letter is dated April 14, 1989 and is addressed "Dear Staff Believer". It goes further why Craig made the decision. I sent a PDF to PAW and asked him to post it. Comments will follow...

This topic has been addressed before but I thought I'd bring it up again. I've been going thru some old TWI letters and papers, and guess what I found? Completed Blue Forms. Specifically, from the time I was a twig coordinator from 9-89 thru 9-90. Guess how much I myself contributed to hq during that stint? $4,857.43. Holy smokes. WOW! I didn't realize I was so generous! I figure over the years, I must have contributed to TWI-1 at least $20,000.00 or so. And that's not even accounting for my Way Corps sponsorship contributions! How about you? P.S. I realize now how much money they're losing by dissing all the old time Way believers!

Ok Dot, thanks. I think very few of them after 1982. From what Dot said, all of them could have been intercepted unless they were in a separate envelope. Coolwaters, I don't know what you mean.