oldiesman

Zshot, I felt this way in my twig in 1989. The wife of the twig coordinator, continually thinking evil and badmouthing TWI, was against Craig and TWI, whispering, murmuring against, etc. I begged, pleaded with my twig coordinators, her and her husband, to write down all the problems they had with Craig and the BOT, and address these things directly with them. I offered to go with them myself to hq to work it out. They refused to do it, even on the phone. These were folks who I stayed with for 7 years, people who I followed from the Bronx, to move close to upstate, just because I thought we were close friends and wanted to be in their twig. So anyway, one day the husband told me privately, that if he weren't married, he would have stuck with TWI, but he didn't want to break up his family. But the thing is, as she was badmouthing and thinking evil about Craig and the BOT, she was teaching "we need to love". Yeah, she loved me so much she couldn't give a damn about what I thought; or have the simple courtesy to just at least meet me half way and try to address the concerns they had directly with the BOT. No way. But yet, she teaches about Love at twig. YUCK.

Hope, great point. Thanks.

John, I thought he WAS being loving. He was finally cleaning house of folks who were badmouthing him. It's not just a question of not being loyal; these folks were into badmouthing, whispering, murmuring, suspicious minds. Asking those folks to leave, was being very loving, especially to folks who wanted to fellowship in peace. One of the statements he wrote was "you don't try to co-exist with gangrene; you cut it out." Let's not kid ourselves, folks were given plenty of time, years, to make up their minds. Even after that, they could have come back if they wanted it. But their opinions of Craig and the BOT were evil. I thought it was better they left, personally.

Some arguments for staying may have been carnal, but others were biblical. I remember a second letter Craig wrote a month later...dated April-June 1989, which expands and gives biblical references relating to his decision. I remember something said about Moses saying to the children of Israel, he who is with me, come over here and stand with me, or something like that. (Was Moses being carnal, asking folks to stand with him, etc.?) The others that didn't stand with Moses, left. I think that second letter expounds the biblical justification for Craig's decision. I can tell you just from my experience, I think a lot of the biblical profit of doing what he said, was just plain peace. It was a real drag going to twig and trying to fellowship with folks who thought Craig and the BOT were evil. Withdrawing from those folks, was one of the best and most peaceful decisions I made. Like a breath of fresh air.

LLP Thanks for your response. It's good to hear that TWI folks are generally supportive of the film, which I think makes a great deal of sense. Try and see it soon, I think you'll be blessed.

I would be more inclined to think that Donna misspoke, rather than what you're surmising...

What you said before, and what you're saying now is an assumption, a giant leap, something you are surmising. I'm sure Donna didn't mean that Craig was taking the place of Christ. That's your assumption. This sounds similar to something I heard during Athletes of the Spirit. Something to the effect that "the minister takes the place of Christ". This is what some thought, those who wanted to think evil of Craig and TWI. They never said that the minister takes the place of Christ, but that's what some folks wanted to think.

Raf, that's news to my ears. Do we have a reference? And why didn't VF share that with me, when I spoke with him personally? ( i don't expect you to know the answer, just wondering)

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.