waysider

And this is something that is missed by people who do voluntary service, such as a "work weekend". Somewhere in their mind, they know they are going back to their family, friends, support system, when the weekend is over. They will have the freedom to openly discuss and evaluate the event without concern for retribution. The actual amount of labor they may provide that particular weekend is really quite irrelevant.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If a basic tenet of a belief system facilitates immoral behavior, it stands to reason the tenet, hence, the belief system (theology) must be flawed in some manner. Unless, of course, your belief system fails to acknowledge the behavior as being immoral, despite the societal mores of the system in which it resides. In this instance, one of those specific flaws is the usage of dispensational theology to excuse immoral behavior and dismiss the perpetrator from accountability. Wierwille proposed that, because this is the "Grace Administration", as defined by dispensational theology, it follows that the most basic of laws, the ten commamdments, does not apply to this day and time. Based on his logic, murder or bank robbery would be acceptable as long as you are "spiritually mature" enough to justify and rationalize it. If you disagree that the validity of dispensationalism should be questioned and discounted, that's your choice. Feel free to explore that avenue in the doctrinal forum. This discussion is not about the concept of "seven administrations" but rather, about how Wierwille applied that concept to exonerate deviant behavior. It's what the rest of the world (the secular faction) calls "rationalization". Click HERE for an explanation of rationalization.

Allow me to clarify it for you. It's generally referred to as "changing the subject".

Once again, may I point out that this discussion is not about the concept of dispensationalism? Yes, it factors into it, but, any further discussion of it would best be handled in a separate thread. IMO And BTW, I (personally) remember a guy who used this stuff to justify sex with his 8 year old step daughter. The courts did not agree with his assessments, thank goodness.

Continued: After work, we all met at limb HQ. Someone from each house was responsible for going back to their house and preparing a pre-determined dinner for their house and bringing the meal and place settings to limb HQ. Every house made the same dinner. We had a food co-op that handled all the logistics of the meals. Participation was mandatory. I think it cost $6 dollars a week. (Minimum wage was something like $2/hr.) If you didn't pay, you didn't eat but you had to sit at a table. No one was allowed to loan you the money. We ate as a branch, at folding tables. Each table had a host and hostess and we followed proper etiquette. We had half an hour to eat dinner. Then, we worked the rest of the evening, either in the garden, doing property maintenance, working in the food co-op, etc. Next, we drove back to the complex, where we met in twigs that were comprised of people who were not in our houses. That lasted 30-45 minutes. Then we went back to our houses and washed dishes, prepared breakfast for the next day, had household meetings etc. ( Houses were cleaned on Saturday afternoons and laundry and personal chores were done on Sunday afternoons.) At midnight, it was lights out, no talking. There's more but that's the general picture.

No. In a college dorm, you are still connected to the outside world. I can't speak to the Corps living experience but I can speak to the Fellow Laborer living experience. There were about 50 of us. We lived in a block of 3 bedroom townhouses, about 30 minutes from Limb HQ. We slept 2 or 3 to a bedroom. No pets. No extraneous belongings. Most of us kept what we had in foot lockers that served double duty as tables. Beds and dressers belonged to the program. The only living quarters at limb HQ was a farm house that the limb leaders lived in. There was another building that we called the BRC. It was, at one time, a party house (banquet facility). Limb was set on a rural property. We had a large garden where we all worked and grew much of the vegetables we ate. Watered Garden could probably tell you more of the garden specifics. We all met every morning at 5:30 as a whole group in one of the basements for prayer, mannies and announcements. If you were on breakfast detail, your day started at 5AM. Next, we ran "to the tree and back" which was just under a mile, down a dark country road. Then, we ate in our "houses" as house families. Every house ate the same pre-determined breakfast. Usually, it was familia, oat groats, wheat berries, and such. After that we left for full time secular jobs. No part time jobs allowed. We were to use those jobs to witness and sign people up for PFAL. If the job was such that it wasn't conducive to that, you were supposed to find another job that was. And, remember, there weren't many jobs in our rural area. Any leads we got, we turned over to local twigs. We were not permitted to socialize or date outside the group and could not leave to go into town without special permission. More in next post.

Another aspect that has occurred to me is that we were physically removed from our support systems. WOWs were sent hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles from home to live in strange towns, in unfamiliar cultures with people who were at times of dubious character. Way Corps and Fellow Laborers lived in communal settings, isolated from mainstream society, with no phones, no television, disconnected from reality. The only support system we had was each other. There was no internet. Rarely was there enough money (or free time) to make a costly long distance call home to family or friends. What would you tell them, anyway? You weren't even sure yourself what you were seeing, how could you describe it to an outsider? Being physically removed from a support system is something I don't think you can ever grasp if you have never gone beyond local involvement, regardless of how many voluntary work details you may have been involved with. Physical isolation------That was a big factor in our vulnerability.

I agree that the theology pertaining to sex wasn't specifically taught to the rank and file. In fact, in Fellow Laborers, if one were caught having sex, it would result in a rapid dismissal. Looking back, though, lots of little pieces to the puzzle come together. For example, why would Wierwille teach the sorts of things that were taught to the rank and file in CF&S? Grooming is the only explanation I can think of. Why, in the Advanced Class, did he teach that adultery was really referring to "spiritual adultery" and, more or less, denigrate those who weren't "spiritually mature enough" to understand its deeper meaning? Why did he teach in the AC, that there was a devil spirit responsible for blinding peoples' understanding of "deeper matters"? (Surely you wouldn't want to admit to not understanding deeper spiritual matters, would you?) Lots of incidents that seemed to make no sense at the time, suddenly become much clearer in view of the larger picture. And, it goes beyond just the sex. There was his inordinate "fondness" for alcohol consumption that was passed off as necessary because he was carrying such a heavy spiritual weight and had renewed his mind to handle it. (Don't let your common sense trick you into considering something may be out of line, just "renew your mind".) That was his way of saying that his way of thinking was right and yours was wrong. Even as early as the PFAL class, he was promoting his attitude on this subject when he taught about smoking and non-smoking Christians. "Do as you fool please", he said. (paraphrased) And there was the phrase "Do what you like as long as you like what you do." which he delivered with a wicked grin. He used his bogus interpretation of dispensations, artificially giving unprecedented significance to different Biblical eras to rationalize his loose morals. He promoted a foot loose and fancy free life style for the "spiritually mature". At the same time, he promoted a line of thinking that seemed to imply that if you weren't seeing "truths" that were deeper than what was written, you were a spiritual weakling (or worse), thus encouraging people to come around to seeing things his way whether they really did or not. It wasn't a secret he kept hidden from the masses. It was an entire, distorted belief system that he openly taught and endorsed. It was right under our noses the whole time, hidden in plain sight. edit: spelling

HUNT CLOSE!

Sick at heart and lonely, deep in dark despair

Dispensationalism lives at the very core of Way theology. Wierwille based his whole "if you can handle it" philosophy on the concept of the Grace Administration. His "to Whom it is written" thinking is addressed very early, session 5 to be exact. Is the administrations line of thinking valid? That's a topic best discussed in another forum rather than veer off course on this one. And, in fact, a search will reveal that this very topic of administrations has been discussed previously. I think Wierwille knew he was off base on the Grace Administration concept. (Bullinger or no Bullinger) That's why he carried it a step farther by teaching that when "adultery" was mentioned in the Bible, there was a secret, profound meaning behind its usage. Simply put, he taught that adultery was really referring to worshiping false gods. He even assigned it its very own devil spirit in the Advanced Class, the "spirit of whoredoms". Then he used the administrations lessons to "prove" it. Not satisfied to stop there, he instituted the "lock box" and even resorted to vile methods to insure the lock box stayed closed. He was really no different than the common child molester that tells his innocent, young victim that their relationship is a very special one and must be kept secret. As John so aptly noted, the difference between what Wierwille did and what others such as Swaggart, Baker and others did is that Wierwille actually used theology to justify his actions. That is simply inexcusable for a man in a position that is supposed to be above reproach.

Click HERE.

Maybe I'm mistaken. Wasn't J0nny "grandfathered" in?

We used to have unannounced, middle of the night room inspections in Fellow Laborers. They even inspected underwear drawers to insure that everything was folded and stored properly. (Of course, it never was. <_< ) And yes, male leaders rifled through the females unmentionables. How nuts was all that?

Programing people to act like bullies is only half of the story. The other half is that they programed others to be recipients. They programed the latter to believe they were spiritually weak (whatever that really means) and wrong to ever question or doubt the former. [Refer to Eve's predicament, as "explained" in session 7 of PLAF (The Wonder Class).] They villafied those who objected and protested. They never could have succeeded in creating a class of bullies without creating a class of recipients. For some people, it takes years to recognize that such vulnerability can have disastrous consequences. So, in a sense, it's my opinion that instilling a naive sense of blind trust in the recipients was just as heinous as creating bullies.

Maybe his scabbard was empty.

You've piqued my interest. Can you cite some specifics?

Why is it this reminds me of a traffic round about? First, you said if there was confirmation of proven guilt, you would shout from the roof tops. Then, when an example was given, you said the context was about VPW, not just any old guilt. Now, you're saying it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, even though that seems to be the title of the thread. It looks to me like you are having trouble figuring out how to navigate the round about.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool--------- Mom. Ron Penfound (AKA Capt. Penny) paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln

Now why would we want another case when you've already declared that "the context was VPW."?

"The context was VPW." 'Nother words----It's all about upholding the innocence of VPW. WD doesn't seem to really be concerned about you, me, or the poor kids in Alaska who suffered at the hands of a known pedophile due to the negligence of TWI. What he is concerned about (IMO) is maintaining the image of VP Wierwille in an unblemished state.

QUOTE (waysider @ Feb 22 2009, 06:58 PM) * What basis do you have for comparison? In light of you having never been in the corps, it's reasonable to expect you would not see the connection. Except I was and there is no comparison. So now you are saying that you WERE in the corps? As an active participant in daily activities?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. This whole thread is about the presumed innocence of VPW?

Was this the same young lady who had tried to look behind the curtain a few years prior?

My post was in response to this statement: "Show me a confirmed charge of a crime and I'll shout it from the roof tops."